Republicans in the Legislature are seeking to upend two pillars of Minnesota's campaign finance system first enacted in response to the Watergate scandal.
A GOP provision before the Legislature would eliminate the state's public subsidy for candidates who agree to abide by voluntary spending limits.
Republican lawmakers oppose public funding of political campaigns on principle, and say the program is not being used as intended.
"The program has become a back door for funneling money to political machines," said Rep. Sarah Anderson, R-Plymouth, the chief House author.
A handful of DFL legislators and activists are pushing back, saying at a news conference Wednesday that eliminating the voluntary spending limits would lead to an arms race of political spending, and further boost the influence of special interest groups.
"It's shocking," said George Beck of Minnesotans for Clean Elections, a former chairman of the state's Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. He also questioned Republican lawmakers' failure to confirm nominees to the campaign board, which no longer has enough members for a quorum to officially meet and decide on enforcement actions.
Sen. Carolyn Laine, DFL-Columbia Heights, said the result of the GOP proposals would be a "pay-to-play" atmosphere in the Legislature, wherein lawmakers cater to the deep-pocketed business or union interests that would fund their campaigns in the absence of the subsidy and voluntary spending cap.
However, the campaign finance environment has already undergone rapid changes in recent years following federal court decisions that loosened regulations on campaign spending, especially by outside groups that can raise and spend unlimited sums on competitive races.
As a result, a handful of Minnesota legislative races topped $1 million in spending in 2016. Candidates themselves spent just a fraction of the total. Instead, wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the two major political parties, legislative caucuses and outside groups like WIN Minnesota on the DFL side and the Jobs Coalition and Minnesota Action Network on the GOP side.
The money is then used on so-called independent expenditure campaigns to support or oppose candidates.
Anderson acknowledged she has taken the subsidy to help fund her own campaigns. But she charged that the subsidy program, which would be eliminated under the GOP plan for a savings of $2.6 million, has already become part of the crush to get money in the hands of outside groups. She said in many cases candidates in noncompetitive races send their subsidy money to the state party, which spends it on the handful of highly competitive races that determine which party ends up in the majority.
"I don't want to be spending $2.6 million of general fund money on politicians when we could put that toward veterans or schools and a whole host of other valuable programs," Anderson said.
House Republicans also want to repeal a tax rebate enacted in 1990 — though it began as a tax credit in the Watergate era — on political contributions of $50 or less, although the Legislature looks unlikely to act on it. It was designed to encourage middle- and lower-income Minnesotans to contribute to the political process.
"We're spending tax dollars for politician welfare," Anderson said.
Beck countered that the proposed changes violate a fundamental precept of Minnesota democracy: "The size of your checking account should not determine the weight of your vote."
J. Patrick Coolican • 651-925-5042
