To balance the state budget, Governor Pawlenty has “unallotted” – pulled the funding for – hundreds of millions of dollars of state spending…
…including the state program that refunded campaign contributions to people.
Naturally, Lori Sturdevant is painting campaign donors as victims of unallotment:
The Campaign Finance Institute, based at George Washington University in Washington, issued a statement Wednesday noting that its studies have found that small donors play an unusually large role in Minnesota’s elections for legislative and state constitutional offices. The state leads the nation in the share of campaign funds raised in increments of less than $100 — the maximum contribution amount from a married couple that the refund program would reimburse.
Well, not. If that trend survives this unallotment, then that will be true.
If it does not, then the State of Minnesota will have led the nation in campaign funds raised in small doses. In other words, all of Minnesota’s taxpayers have been subsidizing Minnesotans’ political habits.
“Eliminating the rebate would remove an important force for democracy in Minnesota government,” said the institute’s executive director Michal Malbin. In most states, campaign donations come in larger amounts from fewer donors, many of whom expect to gain influence with their contributions.
That is right – and whether the donation is small or large, that is the way it should be. If I give $5 to the NRA, it’s because I want to “gain influence” in Saint Paul or Washington when my contribution forces NRA-endorsed candidates over the top to win elections.
So in what ethical universe is it right for Greta Hellemoen in Fergus Falls to subsidize my political donations?
Common Cause Minnesota is urging the 2010 Legislature to restore the program,
Another good reason to cut it.
and Republican activist Robert Carney of Minneapolis has threatened to initiate a class action lawsuit to stop Pawlenty’s unallotment. His argument is that depriving taxpayers of a promised refund sets an unwelcome precedent for the next time the state faces money woes.
Perhaps, arguably.
Allowing the DFL to spend money like crack whores who’ve rolled their johns is even more “unwelcome”, one might think…
When I got involved in the state GOP, an insider told me that the refund program was crucial to the GOP because the DFL by and large relied on large donors.
I took that as a sign of how bad the gentleman’s understanding of conservative principles are.
I always refused to participate in the program out of straight principle. It may have been misguided, but it just seemed wrong to me.
I always took the $50 of free money, but felt dirty afterwards.
Two things: First, if you use the program as an excuse not to give anything at all, you’re just making the DFL’s huge money advantage bigger. If it really offends your principles, don’t apply for the refund. Second, and better, would be to get the refund and then promptly sign the check over to your local Republican. You’re out the $50, like you wanted to be, and $50 of what you paid in taxes gets sent to your favorite Republican, too. Which would you rather have, a DFLer who will spend ten times that $50, or more, on something even MORE objectionable to conservatives, or an elected Republican that won’t spend as much, and might even give some of it back?
There lies the problem, Ewing. I stick to my principles while the other side is free to use government money to fund their campaigns against my principles.
Since politics needs to be conducted on a (mostly) level playing field, and since conservative principles don’t condone government handouts for politics, the only reasonable conclusion to make is that conservatives need to make sure the refund doesn’t come back in 2011.
and Republican activist Robert Carney of Minneapolis has threatened to initiate a class action lawsuit to stop Pawlenty’s unallotment.
Um yeah, good luck with that. I’m sure that the Minnesota courts have just been waiting in breathless anticipation for someone to file a “class action lawsuit” so they can rule that the governor cannot exercise a power granted to him by our State constitution.
Pingback: » Morning Report 7/13/2009