Campaign aid under attack

04/24/2005

Dane Smith, Star Tribune
April 25, 2005

Proposals by Gov. Tim Pawlenty to drain much of the money from Minnesota’s campaign finance subsidies are moving through the Minnesota House and might be on the table for final budget negotiations.

Pawlenty and his House Republican allies are pushing through bills that would scrap the political contribution refund program, cut direct campaign subsidies from the general fund and change the campaign “check-off” system so that income-tax payers would have less incentive to use it.

Republicans, who have long been critical of the programs, say the state’s budget problems and public demands for basic services such as education and transportation are forcing some tough choices.

“The governor feels that in times of tight state budgets using hard-earned taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns is simply not a high priority,” Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said. “Putting this budget together is all about prioritizing.”

But DFLers and campaign overhaul advocates say the bills threaten Minnesota’s reputation for clean and competitive politics. The cuts will protect incumbents and could deliver a severe blow to the Independence Party of former Gov. Jesse Ventura, they say.

“This is not a smart idea,” said David Schultz, a campaign finance expert at Hamline University. Since Wisconsin slashed its subsidies recently, up to a third of legislative incumbents have gone unchallenged and in a few races the campaign spending has topped $1 million by each candidate, he said.

Sen. Chuck Wiger, DFL-North St. Paul, said Pawlenty’s proposal “will be opposed and opposed strongly” in the Senate.

And Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, the architect of much of Minnesota’s campaign finance regulation, labeled the proposals “outrageous” in view of Pawlenty’s strong position going into his expected 2006 reelection drive.

“Our governor is an incumbent with a lot of money and a lot of wealthy friends who’s figuring out he doesn’t need the money himself this time, and if he can take it away from everyone else it saves money on his budget,” Marty said

Despite the Senate opposition, DFLers are looking everywhere for money, too, and Wiger acknowledged that “if the House puts it on the table, it’s on the table. You never say never, but I think it’s unlikely we’ll accept it.”

Under the system, legislative and statewide candidates who choose to participate in the public finance system also must abide by spending limits. For a House race in 2002, that limit was about $27,000; for the Senate, which has districts twice the size of the House’s, the limit was about $55,000. For the governor’s race, the limit was about $2.3 million.

Subsidies typically are about one-fourth of the spending limit, so there’s considerable incentive to participate. In 2002, 99 percent of candidates, including all four major-party gubernatorial candidates, took the money and abided by the limits. Proponents say the system encourages challengers to run, because they know they will have the funds to mount a respectable effort.

There’s a consensus that Ventura could not have won the governor’s office in 1998 if he hadn’t qualified for more than $300,000 in public financing, enough to put up a credible television advertising presence.

Jack Uldrich, a U.S. Senate candidate and a former Independence Party chairman, is particularly irate about the proposed changes.

“This could be a blatant benefit to Pawlenty himself, because it’s clear that he’s thinking about not abiding by the limits this time,” Uldrich said. “This puts way too much special interest money in the process and eliminates the one source of truly clean funding. And it really makes it difficult for us, because our party platform prevents us from accepting any special-interest or political action committee money.”

Rep. Phil Krinkie, R-Shoreview, who supports the governor’s proposed cuts, acknowledges that they might produce some “unintended consequences.” If those consequences are found to be unacceptable, the Legislature might decide in future years to restore some of the funding, he said.

But for Krinkie the bottom line is that public financing is not essential. “How can we go back to the public and say we cut this and we cut that, but we kept our own campaign subsidies?” he said.