Common Cause Minnesota (CCM) is a “non-partisan” PAC that exists, in its entirety, to advance liberal causes and, when they can’t manage that, to retard conservative ones.
Oh, they tart the message up like a twenty-dollar hooker: “Common Cause Minnesota is a nonprofit, nonpartisan citizen’s lobby dedicated to improving the way state government operates. We have helped pass Minnesota’s most important ethics and campaign finance reforms“, is what they say on their website. And everywhere, in all their communication – transparency. Transparency, transparancy, transparency. They want “Transparency” in government. Or so they say.
We’ll come back to that.
As I pointed out last September, in the wake of finding out that “Alliance For A Better Minnesota” was spending an avalanche of funding from not-so-transparent sources like Mark Dayton, his ex-wife and a slew of unions, through via a fiscal shell game that Derek Brigham mapped out as well as anyone – certainly better than anyone in the mainstream media…
…Common Cause had demanded an investigation of…
…Campaign for Minnesota’s future, and a donation it got from the Republican Governors Assocation.
And for this campaign, Common Cause went big, going to the state Campaign Finance Board.
CCM’s announcement certainly set the stakes high (emphasis added by me):
WHAT: Common Cause has uncovered an elaborate scheme by three entities to hide political contributions.
WHEN: Thursday, September 30, 2010
11:00 a.m.WHERE: Room 125, State Capitol
Common Cause Minnesota will outline a major complaint that it has filed with the Campaign Finance Disclosure Board alleging that three different entities circumvented Minnesota disclosure law and failed to properly disclose large contributions. The parties involved could face civil penalties totaling $5.1 million and criminal prosecution.
###
Whew! Scary!
And when the CFB released its results, CCM spun it like it was huge news; Mike Dean, CCM’s president, tweeted:
Campaign Finance Board finds that Minnesota’s Future, LLC Violated State Law:
Of course, like everything Mike Dean and CCM say and do, it was a bunch of twaddle. The Minnesota Campaign Finance Board released its conclusions.
Among CCM’s many charges was that the Republican Governors Association didn’t disclose its donors according to Minnesota law.
It was true; they did it better than Minnesota law!
The Board notes that the RGA disclosed all of its sources of income to the IRS under the requirements applicable to organizations registered under IRC section 527. The timing of that disclosure is different than what is required in Minnesota but the level of itemization is greater than Minnesota requires. This observation is noted because it suggests that avoidance of disclosure was not a motive for the RGA when it made its contribution to Minnesota Future, LLC.
Conclusions from CFB investigation – again, with emphasis added:
Based on the above analysis, and the submissions of the Complainant and the other parties, the Board makes the following:
Findings Concerning Probable Cause
1. There is probable cause to believe that Minnesota Future, LLC, and State Fund for Economic Growth, both Minnesota corporations, operated as political committees as defined by statute and were required to register with the Board within ten days of accepting contributions or making expenditures in excess of $100.
2. There is no probable cause to believe that the failure of Minnesota Future, LLC, or State Fund For Economic Growth to register was done with the knowledge and understanding the corporation was, in fact, required to register.
3. Minnesota Future, LLC, and State Fund for Economic Growth have registered with and reported to the Board retroactive to the date they first accepted contributions in excess of $100. They have completed their registration and reporting obligations. Consequently, there is no probable cause to believe that an ongoing violation exists.
So there was no substantial violation of any kind. It was a technical violation of a provision in state election finance law that’s not all that clear; no harm was done, no fines were levied (they very frequently are in these cases); Minnesota Forward didn’t get so much as a stern “you watch what you’re doing, now!” No “criminal charges”, no “multimillion dollar fines”.
Nothing.
CCM’s selective complaining was incongruous enough to make even liberal-in-good-standing Paul Demko ask:
But Common Cause did not file a similar complaint against WIN Minnesota, a DFL-aligned organization that has been helping pay for attack ads against GOP nominee Tom Emmer. The group received a similar $250,000 contribution from the Democratic Governors Association (DGA).
Dean said WIN Minnesota is in compliance with the law because it’s organized under a different section of the tax code and has a broader mandate then simply influencing electoral politics. But he conceded that WIN Minnesota is no more transparent in revealing the source of the DGA money then its conservative counterpart. “The issue is one organization followed the law and the other organization did not,” Dean said.
Except that MNForward did, according to the Campaign Finance Board – and if WIN Minnesota (one of the maze of shell groups underwrting “Alliance for a Better Minnesota”) did, it was only by the stretchiest definition of “the letter of the law”, and I doubt even that.
So you might be reading this, and thinking – “Wow – Common Cause sounds like a bunch of weasels”.
Now, now. Not yet, they don’t.
Read this bit first (again with emphasis added):
At issue is a $429,000 contribution that the Republican Governors Association funneled to the group, which has been running television commercials bashing DFL gubernatorial nominee Mark Dayton. Common Cause argues in the complaint that Minnesota’s Future was required to disclose the names of donors who contributed to the Republican Governors Association.
Leaving aside the fact that the Campaign Finance Board rejected the premise that Minnesota’s future did anything wrong, I’d like you to check this out. It’s an excerpt from Page 4 of Common Cause’s 2008 IRS Form 990 – disclosures.
Can’t read the names?
Get used to it. There are eight pages of donations, a total of 44 of them, totalling over $600,000.
For one year.
And not one name.
For a group that alleges itself to be all about “transparency in politics”.
The lesson from this? Whenever “Common Cause” pops up in this state’s political discourse, they need to be pelted with rhetorical rocks and garbage. They exist only as a front group for the DFL; they are fundamentally dishonest.
I’ve invited CCM “president” Mike Dean to appear on the Northern Alliance Radio Network to discuss his various charges, and defend CCM against the charge that they are lying to the people. Repeatedly. For almost three months.
I expect better from responsible adults with non-risible points of view.
Place your bets.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Yet again, feeds MN bullsh*t, calls it "pate": #stribpol #narn2 Frivolous complaint rejected. -- Topsy.com
So you might be reading this, and thinking – “Wow – Common Cause sounds like a bunch of weasels”.
Now, now. Not yet, they don’t.
Heh. Very nice.
So, shall we file a complaint? Seriously, it wouldn’t hurt to ask the Campaign Finance Board why CCM isn’t required to name names.
Or better yet, why not ask CCM.
why not ask CCM.
I keep inviting him on the NARN. He gets very quiet on Twitter when I do.
“a slew of unions”
I find the slew of unions suggesting gobs of money that are somehow illegal very amusing.
Here is the lead off from the CPAN3 coverage yesterday of FactCheck.org event (yes, I love them) on the post Citizens United “cash attack” which turned the 2010 elections into more of an auction.
You are so selective in the groups of wealthy individuals donating lots and lots of money, Mitch. You ignore utterly the corporate dealings and the shady big money individuals supporting your side.
For example – per the factcheck.org event:
American Crossroads / Crossroads GPS $38,675,723
U.S. Chamber of Commerce $32,851,997
American Action Network $26,088,031
While the unions, which represent many small donors, only managed to come up with far less $$$$$$$$$$$$$, only slightly more combined than the third single largest group of primarily wealthy donors
SEIU $15,769,546
AFSCME $12,416,770
So it is not surprising that conservatives are now paying off their buyers, er, donors, with the big tax cuts for the wealthy, and no estate tax, etc.
It has nothing to do with job creation – those tax cuts don’t create anything but more wealth for the already wealthy. It is the big payoff to the buyers of the political candidates. Tsk tsk…..next to that, the Dayton money is pretty paltry isn’t it? You’re not mad that Dayton got that money; you’re just unhappy that the big buyers left Emmer sitting on the shelf of the conservative -buy-a-candidate- store. And there doesn’t seem to be much of a market for post-election fire-sale buyers does there?
DG,
There is no lefty chanting point too facile to prevent you from dragging a subject off-topic with a long non-sequitur, is there?
This post is about CCM’s sham “non-partisan” status, their ignoring the byzantine and intentionally deceptive funding behind ABM while bringing an ominous (and slavishly-publicized) complaint against a perfectly legal (if imperfectly-documented under state rules) contribution, and thenmisrepresenting the CFB’s finding as even as much as a slap on MNForward’s wrist.
We know, we know – you think business should pay its taxes, but be silenced. Gotcha.
And I had to laugh about this bit here: “the unions, which represent many small donors“.
Hah!
You’ve never been in a union, have you? Unlike most DFLers, I have.
You don’t “Donate” to a union PAC. You pay your dues (or “fair share”, usually 90% of the dues) or you lose the job (one way or another). The union’s leaderhship decides who “you” “donate” to. The big unions give over 95% of their “donations” to statist candidates, almost invariably Democratics. Many – in some parts of the country, most – of their dues-paying members disagree with the politics they pay for, whether they want to or not.
Now, DG – go back and try it again. And be on-topic this time.
And with that we see why I don’t even bother reading Penigma.
Deegee, please multisource/factcheck your colon.
There are disturbing rumors circulating suggesting teh Peevee has taken up permenant residence up there, rendering your head homeless.
We await your comprehensive report.
Oh, and Deegee? When you’ve completed the investigation of the condition of your rectal community; residents thereof, can you get those shirts ironed, dear?
Easy on the starch, please. Thanks kindly.
There is no lefty chanting point too facile to prevent you from dragging a subject off-topic with a long non-sequitur, is there?
Your entire post was wrong, Mitch. Dog Gone merely responded to the post you should have written. The woman has the patience of a saint.
If it were me, Swiftee, I’d have DG work on the shirts before she does the rectal investigation. Just sayin’.
Now, DG – go back and try it again. And be on-topic this time.
I have repeatedly objected to large contributors, individuals and corporations overwhelming individual voter contributions to political campaigns.
You may very well be objecting to the donors to this group, but I pointed out that you do not object to similar donors to other groups, larger groups, which do the same thing – this makes your objections a bit hypocritical, and therefore quite on topic. Either there is a problem with big donors, or there isn’t.
The U.S.Chamber of Commerce claims to be non-partisan as well. Clearly it is not. So, it seems to me that in this post, you are focusing on far less significant questions of partisanship here, than those which have had a much greater impact on our elections. That selective focus which ignores far more egregious abuses of our political system make this complaint a joke.
That on target enough for you? Swiftee – do you ever wear anything other than t-shirts? Those don’t really need ironing dear, now run along and play, and when you grow up maybe someone will teach you to be self-sufficient by ironing your own shirts, so you’re not so helpless.
Dog Gone said:
“I pointed out that you do not object to similar donors to other groups, larger groups, which do the same thing – this makes your objections a bit hypocritical”
No, please try again to understand the meaning of the word “hypocritical”.
Dog Gone said:
“The U.S.Chamber of Commerce claims to be non-partisan as well. Clearly it is not”
Clearly you are wrong, unless Democrats are anti-commerce. Or are you admitting something here?
Dog Gone merely responded to the post you should have written
I pulled the crap out of one of my muscles in my ribcage over the weekend (dragging the impulse-bought snowblower through the drifts to get home, probably), so it hurts to laugh.
“DG, There is no lefty chanting point too facile to prevent you from dragging a subject off-topic with a long non-sequitur, is there?”
Sadly it’s come to the point where I ignore 99% of what DG writes, you just can’t get that time back.
That on target enough for you?
DG loves that tu quoque argument. And again, the tu quoque argument misses Mitch’s point completely.
Common Cause can do whatever it wants, and it will. Mitch is only suggesting that people ought not take Common Cause’s assertions any more seriously than they might take the assertions of AfaBM. Especially since they boil down to the same assertions.
You may very well be objecting to the donors to this group, but I pointed out that you do not object to similar donors to other groups,
Which is, again, utterly irrelevant.
This is not about who donates to whom. I don’t care, at least in principle, that unions donate (their coercive behavior and insinuation into policy are another matter but, again, not at issue in this post).
I called out Common Cause for…:
a) filing a frivolous complaint that they…
b) spun as a big indictment of post-Citizens United-“opacity”, which was in fact…
c) tossed as a minor technical violation, without even a notional hand-slap, which CCM then…
d) spun as a big defeat to MN Forward.
It’s not about who donates to whom; it’s a about a phony “non-partisan” partisan group manipulating the media, and me calling them on it.
Do you get the distinction?
I get it – like all lefties, you are participating in the meme that corporate donations are somehow more toxic to politics than unions or plutocrats like Alita Messinger. It makes no sense, but I get it.
That on target enough for you?
Strike two.
The U.S.Chamber of Commerce claims to be non-partisan as well.
Deegee, has the CoC taken up residence in your ass as well?
I thought not….focus, dear, focus.
Those shirts aren’t going to iron themselves, and if you do not get your multisourced-factcheck complete before liquor time is over, you’re not going to have anywhere to insert your weary head.
I pointed out that you do not object to similar donors to other groups,
What Mr. D. said. This is the logical fallacy of the “tu quoque” ad-hominem argument; “your argument is invalid because it conflicts with something you said in the past”.
Like all logical fallacies, it frames your argument in a form that’s just not really logically habitable.
Mitch, why do you hate broccoli? Both George HW and George W Bush hate broccoli. Why do you continue to obfuscate?
(Is that bumpy surface a colon wall?)
It’s a Berg/Bush broccoli cover up.
Developing…
Broccoli? Wasn’t he the dude who made the early James Bond flicks?
Wheels within wheels, my friend. Wheels within wheels.
DG- “…big tax cuts for the wealthy and no estate tax….” I thought the agreement was on a 5 million dollar exlusion and then a tax rate of 35% for the estate tax.
jimf is correct. 35% is the agreement Obama made. But please, don’t disturb the chanting points.
big tax cuts for the wealthy
big tax cuts for the wealthy
big tax cuts for the wealthy
big tax cuts for the wealthy
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Common Tools
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » More Of The Same
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » “Stop Sending Racy Photos!” Yelled Rep. Weiner
Pingback: Buying Minnesota With Daddy’s Money, Part II | Shot in the Dark