Readers write for July 29, 2010

As a shareholder and customer of Target, I am dismayed at the management's decision to make a large contribution to a political fund that supports gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer ("After political gift, Target feels backlash," July 28). Donations from corporations in support of candidates are bad for our democracy, and it is bad business. Such contributions were banned until a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned long-established precedent. Hopefully, Congress will pass legislation to limit the amount of such contributions and require disclosure. Otherwise companies will try to "buy" our leaders with large contributions.

As a highly visible retailer, Target should not take sides in political campaigns and alienate a portion of its customers, employees and shareholders.

Corporate funds are not a personal piggy bank for the CEO to use to promote his personal political agenda. Target's board should repudiate this decision and adopt a policy forbidding future contributions. If the board doesn't, hopefully the shareholders will.

ERIC W. FORSBERG, GOLDEN VALLEY

• • •

Target executives apparently don't get the connected world. Theirs is a schizophrenic policy in that they can promote equality on social issues through philanthropic measures while monetarily supporting an organization that backs a gubernatorial candidate who they believe would help their bottom line but who opposes such equality.

This is a lesson in trying to compartmentalize choices. Target believes it can keep social issues in one box and net profit in another -- and never the twain shall meet. It's not such a black-and-white world for businesses now that they can legally participate in our democratic process just like an individual citizen. Trying to balance more than one objective instead of only targeting net profit colors their world gray.

• • •

I am perplexed that so many people are perplexed that Target donated money to an organization that will promote Tom Emmer for governor. As a Target employee and a Republican candidate for Minnesota's House of Representatives, I believe Target should donate more for two simple reasons: First, I want Emmer to win, because I believe that he would make a great governor. Second, I want myself and those around me to have jobs going forward.

The Democratic gubernatorial candidates have been busy falling over each other talking about how much they are going to tax and spend. Those taxes would come from the "rich" and corporations (job creators). Target would lose money directly from its profit margins and indirectly through the loss of sales, since many of Target's customers tend to be high-earners. Do those Target employees who are complaining not realize that their economic well-being is also tied to Target's? Instead, they should go talk to their preferred candidates and remind them that taxing the job-creating enterprises in our state will not create one single job.

Finally, I await the public outrage and the press scrutiny of the public service unions that are busy spending millions to help get Democrats elected. These unions take a percentage of their members' pay and help elect friendly politicians who than tax us more so union members can have higher pay and more benefits. They are by far the largest and best-financed special interest group in the country. Are they afraid of a little competition?

STEPHEN MANDERFELD, HOPKINS

So much for a once-great company that was an example of corporate responsibility.

JEREMY POWERS, FRIDLEY

• • •

The uproar by the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) community over Target's $150,000 donation to a group that has placed an ad for Tom Emmer is questionable. Target is one company that recognizes the plight of the GLBT community by offering domestic partnership benefits and donating money to pride parades.

The donation by Target is to back a candidate who is probusiness.

CHRIS LUND, HAMBURG, Minn.

Regarding DFL gubernatorial candidate Margaret Anderson Kelliher's recent campaign proposal on property taxes ("Kelliher pitches seniors-only tax break," July 27):

The Minnesota Seniors Federation, a pioneer in prescription drug and medical coverage advocacy, has also been lobbying for a property tax limit based on household income for all homeowners.

The committee has several times requested meetings with Kelliher, House Tax Committee chair Ann Lenczewski and Property Tax Committee chair Paul Marquart. All have been against any kind of proposal to limit property taxes for anyone, including seniors. In fact, Kelliher and Lenczewski refused to take meetings on this issue with the representatives of our tax committee.

The House Property Tax committee has had our proposal, reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, for two years but has refused to hold a hearing on it.

The budget and the overall tax system in our state is a mess. We can fix it, but only with candidates and legislators who are intelligent and determined enough to dig in and do the hard work and not use the election as an excuse for making insincere statements and promises they can't keep.

It is up to the voters to put their foot down and reject this kind of political nonsense.