The crux of the issue here is whether the police are being incentivized and are biased by this arrangement.
It's possible they feel that they are being paid by Enbridge and thus behave differently, but I think it's much more likely that this arrangement is above their heads — they're doing their job as police, and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is ensuring that local townspeople don't pay for an increase in police budget caused by a large company's behavior. I could only really imagine they're being biased if they're being weaponized as a personal security force, and could, for instance, be removed from assignment if they don't follow Enbridge's orders on who to arrest. I highly, highly doubt that to be the case.
> Enbridge told the Guardian an independent account manager allocates the funds, and police decide when protesters are breaking the law. But records obtained by the Guardian show the company meets daily with police to discuss intelligence gathering and patrols. And when Enbridge wants protesters removed, it calls police or sends letters.
This reminds me of a local police presence at a rally or controversial talk speaking to the organizers of the event about their concerns. This is rather ordinary, really.
Without evidence of what their letters or calls contain, I imagine it's like "hey, this person broke the law and here's the evidence," which frankly is fine reason to arrest someone. The ability to call the police and tell them that you want someone arrested for an illegal action is one of their main purposes!
Altogether, this article has a huge bite as clickbait, as the idea of our police being weaponized like a private security force by a foreign national company, but I think the reality is much more dull.