opinion

Visit any Target store, and you know it is "back to school" season. One class that should be on the schedule of Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel is a Scandinavia Seminar on Corporate Social Responsibility offered by the Carlson School of Business.

The class offers a comparative analysis of the three tenets of corporate social responsibility -- people, planet and profit -- between the United States and Scandinavian countries. Long considered world leaders when it comes to corporate social responsibility, the Scandinavians could teach Steinhafel a thing or two.

While Minnesota has long been a leader in corporate social responsibility -- maybe because of its Scandinavian roots -- we have learned recently that a handful of Minnesota businesses have begun making extremely large contributions from their corporate treasuries to fund special-interest political ads.

These donations, which seem contrary to the established social mores of good corporate citizenship in Minnesota, are the consequences of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case, which has opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending in political campaigns through special-interest groups. While some have hailed this opinion as a victory for free speech, the sad truth is that it will have a corrupting influence on our political process and democratic institutions.

Therefore, Common Cause Minnesota is calling on corporations and unions to refrain from this type of political spending. Political contributions from the corporate treasury violate the most basic standards of corporate responsibility by placing profits ahead of everything else. These political donations too often are used to support candidates, issues and activities that are contrary to the publicly stated values, policies and practices of the corporation.

And, not only are they bad for business; they are bad for our political system.

Target saw firsthand how these contributions can have a negative impact on the reputation of a business. No matter who Target donated to, the corporation would have faced criticism that the contribution violated the its core values. It learned quickly that just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should.

The fallout won't end with Target's customers. Shareholders should question whether this contribution was made with Target's best interests in mind. A study by the Carlson School at the University of Minnesota suggests that when managers use corporate funds to make political donations, the contributions often advance the political views of those managers -- not the interests of the corporations they manage.

Voters must also ask the tough questions: What are corporations expecting in return for political contributions?

It is hard to believe that big business would invest that kind of money without expecting something in return. Minnesota has largely avoided the political corruption that exists in other states because it encourages average voters to make small-dollar political contributions. When someone writes a check to a candidate for $50, it is hard to argue that they expect something in return. But, when an individual or a corporation writes a $1 million check, the scenario changes dramatically. At that level, the perception is that they are seeking a return on that investment.

The bottom line is that the concerns of middle-class families will be drowned out of the political process as a result of unlimited corporate and union contributions. If corporations truly care about strengthening our community, they would quickly realize that these types of political donations will create a government that is unable to deal with the major problems of the day.

The public fervor over Target's actions show how customers expect more from corporations today. Target should continue its work to strengthen the community, not invest in the politics that divide it.

Mike Dean is executive director of Common Cause Minnesota, a government watchdog group.