Sen. Sheila Kiscaden: Election Commentary

11/06/2006

Dear Friends:

There is nothing like tight elections to get political folks like me
engaged and energized.

There is so much at stake that will impact our state and nation!

My observations and reflections of the last few weeks prompt me to send
a rather long commentary about this year’s campaigns and tomorrow’s
elections.  Here is what is contained in this message:

1- Why is Rochester Such a Political Hot Spot in 2006?
2- Party majority: No Risk to Rochester’s University
3- Why all the Negative Campaign Ads and Mailings?
4- Political Silence and Stealth Tactics
5- The Dream Act:  Not About Illegal Immigrants
6- Vote! MORE PRINCIPLE, LESS POLITICS!

1- Why is Rochester Such a Political Hot Spot in 2006?

Rochester is a political hot spot this year because it has a strong
independent streak, and because in the close elections of 2004,
Democrats were elected from Rochester for the first time in decades. In
2002 many voters supported Tim Penny over Tim Pawlenty, and two years
ago, John Kerry gained more votes than expected. Thus, our area is
considered to be a “swing” district that may well determine the
outcome of the governor’s race, the First Congressional District, and
the majority in the Minnesota House.

There are three very close Minnesota House races in our area that were
won last time by very small margins: House 29B; Kim Norton (D) verses
Rick Decker (R): House 30A, Tina Liebling (D) verses Carla Nelson (R);
House 30B, Andy Welti (D) verses Bill Kuisle (R).  The race for my
senate seat, District 30 pairs first time candidate Ann Lynch (D) verses
second time candidate Scott Wright (R). (Wright ran for the seat in 1994
as a strong, pro-life conservative, but lost in the Republican primary.)


All of the candidates are aware that Minnesotans are upset about
partisan gridlock, and so the candidates are all running on
bi-partisanship, on their “moderate” credentials, and on their
ability to represent Rochester area interests, especially the University
of Minnesota expansion and biotechnology project funding. Some of these
candidates have experience in non-partisan office, some have made
sincere efforts to be bi-partisan, others have a strong history of
partisanship but realize that local voters want a different approach.
You will have to judge which candidates can truly work with those of
opposing views: past history is the best predictor.

Elections provide the opportunity for the voters to send a message to
those who represent you at the Legislature, in Congress, and in the
Governor’s office. Close races are healthy in that they remind elected
officials that they are accountable to the voters, all of the voters not
just those with their party affiliation.

2- Party majority: No Risk to Rochester’s University

It is true that the majority party in each house (Senate and House)
sets the agenda and influences the outcome of bills. Everyone expects
Democrats to retain the majority in the Minnesota Senate. For the past
two years, Republicans have had a very slim, two seat narrow majority in
the House, and Republicans are very worried they will lose the
majority*and the races in Rochester may be the determining factor.

Republican candidates and ads, and even the Post Bulletin have been
warning that if Republicans do not retain the majority in the House,
Rochester’s interests, (particularly the University of Minnesota
Rochester) will be lost.  I have been astounded that the Post Bulletin
and experienced local political activists are making this argument and
choose to ignore the facts of the matter.

There is no threat to the continuation of the University of Minnesota
expansion no matter who is in the majority or who chairs the House
Higher Education Committee.

Why do I say that?  Because it is a done deal.  Legislative
authorization to create the branch campus was granted in 1998 and there
has never been an attempt to rescind that authorization.  To accelerate
its expansion, this year we secured $6.3 in annual funding and we got
full support of the Board of Regents for the Rochester campus plan.
This new funding was put into the base budget for the University of
Minnesota and was earmarked for Rochester.  Base budget funding
continues year after year and is not subject to legislative review.  The
Rochester base budget will expand over time as enrollment increases and
new programs are developed.

Thus, the University of Minnesota Rochester is safe and secure, even
from legislators trying to represent and protect Winona’s objections.
And, if you do not accept that, then the safest way to make sure
Rochester’s interest are protected is to have both Democrats and
Republicans elected to represent the area.

With 14 years of experience, I can honestly say that Rochester has had
a much easier time getting legislative support for its initiatives since
it elected Democrats to the House and I joined the Democrats in the
Senate. A bi-partisan delegation is a strength, not a weakness for our
area. We need more bi-partisanship at the Legislature, not less.

3- Why all the Negative Campaign Ads and Mailings?

If you have been listening to the radio or watching TV, the political
ads are non-stop.

You are certainly aware that many of these ads are not sponsored by the
candidates themselves. The same is true for the mailings you are getting
in your mailboxes, although you often have to read the fine print before
you realize that some group other than the candidate has sent out the
mailing.

With the tight races this year in our area, there are many, many such
“independent expenditures” by groups other than the
candidates*political parties, legislative caucuses, business
interests, unions, and political action committees.  Often it is these
organizations that use the strident, hostile tone that attacks the
credibility of the other candidate.

Many citizens have complained to me about the negativity. And, you
might be surprised to know that the candidates themselves, whether
Democrat or Republican, are very unhappy about the attacks being made by
independent groups.  Most candidates feel that they have worked hard to
run positive campaigns based on their credentials only to have these
independent expenditures cast a negative pall over their campaigns.

This campaign tactic of attacks on the opposition is usually used not
to inform the electorate, but to suppress votes*to discourage you from
voting for a particular candidate*or to discourage you from voting at
all.  The strategy of such group’s efforts is to work to get their
supporters out to vote through phone calls and other approaches while
simultaneously discouraging others from voting. With the fine-tuned
lists of potential voters to work from, this approach has been shown to
work.

Unfortunately, it is really damaging to our democracy and prevents full
debate of the issues and makes consideration of the candidates’ actual
positions and qualifications harder.


4- Political Silence and Stealth Tactics:

Another political strategy that is being used this year in our area is
silence and stealth.

For example, for the last 30+ years there has been no more contentious
campaign issue than abortion/reproductive rights. That is*until this
year. This year candidates have not been offering or being asked about
their views about abortion in broad public debates *nor is candidates’
literature referencing their views on the issue.

Why the political silence, especially given the tight area races in our
area? Strategy.

The issue has not gone away, but it is now a hidden or covert rather
than a visible topic of campaign debate and rhetoric. The Republican
Party has only endorsed candidates who are “pro-life”, and rather
than have open debate about the issues, “pro-life” interests are
spending their resources and lists to get out the voters who support
their positions. Another reason for the political silence is that
currently in the Minnesota Senate and House, there are enough
“pro-life” Democrats that the “pro-life” legislators are in
the majority.  This has already brought results for the pro-life special
interests.

What many people do not realize that “pro-life” interests go far
beyond opposing legal abortion.  The “pro-life agenda” includes
opposition to funding family planning services around the state,
opposition to comprehensive sex education, opposition to emergency
contraception, opposition to school-based clinics (often an important
source of primary care in low-income children), and support for
“conscience clauses” to allow health providers to refuse to fill
prescriptions or provide services based on personal beliefs.  It also
extends to end of life care.  Last year, “pro-life” legislators and
lobbyists passed a bill in the House Health Committee that would have
limited family and personal decisions by requiring forced hydration and
nutrition at the end of life.

Embryonic stem cell research, which is strongly supported by the
medical and scientific community, is strongly opposed by “pro-life”
factions. Despite the fact that the embryos used for this research are
the product of in vitro fertilization, will otherwise be destroyed, and
are donated with the consent of the parents of the embryos, the most
zealous pro-life candidates oppose embryonic stem cell research. This
includes Scott Wright, the Republican candidate for my Senate seat. He
and Bill Kuisle got a 100% survey rating from the very politically
powerful Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, who mailed flyers to a
select group of voters this week urging support for these and other
“pro-life” candidates.

Not raising the issue the “pro-life” agenda publicly helps maintain
the “pro-life” legislative majority. It allows “pro-life”
special interest groups to spend their energies mobilizing voters who
support their positions to go to the polls. Silence avoids calling the
issues and consequences to the attention of “pro-choice” voters.
Thus, political silence helps suppress the “pro-choice” vote, helps
elect “pro-life” candidates, and advances the full “pro-life”
agenda.

5- The Dream Act is Not About Illegal Immigrants:

An amazing distortion in this year’s campaigns is the assertion that
anyone who supported the Dream Act, was trying to help illegal
immigrants get government benefits denied to other US citizens.

Last week at my church, we congratulated a family of four who had just
become citizens.  This family, like most immigrants, came here on a visa
because of the career and quality of life opportunities.  Like most
immigrants, it has taken years to establish residency and complete the
requirements to become citizens. In the meantime they were working,
paying taxes, paying for a home, and raising their two children.  Those
children went to our public schools and will go to our colleges.

The Dream Act, (which did not pass because of Republican opposition)
would allow a family like theirs to pay in-state tuition when their
children, provided they have graduated in good standing after attending
one of our high schools for at least three years, and have no history of
behavioral or legal problems.

The proposal was not about illegal immigrants*.it was about supporting
and rewarding immigrants who have come here legally and have made
Minnesota their home.

Incidentally, Winona State University, Southwest State University and a
number of other public institutions ALREADY charge in-state tuition for
students from other states and other countries.

Frankly, Minnesota has a workforce shortage and should be eliminating
out-of-state tuition in all public institutions because one of the best
ways and easiest ways to recruit a skilled workforce is through the
students who come to Minnesota to get their college educations: over 60%
of them stay and work in Minnesota after graduation. Minnesota’s
economic success is based on our highly skilled, productive workforce.

Republicans in both national and local races have been trying to allege
that anyone who supports the “Dream Act” is trying to give some
special benefit to illegal immigrants.

That is simply not the case.

6- Vote! MORE PRINCIPLE, LESS POLITICS

Earlier this year I was involved in a statewide campaign that had More
Principle, Less Politics as the campaign theme.  It is what I believe.
Minnesota needs to find ways to restore full debate on issues instead of
sound bites in campaigns and in political deliberations.  Minnesota
needs more legislators who will put principle ahead of politics: who
believe that searching for the common good requires listening to and
respecting all points of view.

We will not get there as a state and as a nation, without citizens who
are willing to question, who demand accountability, and who get
involved.  The first and most important step, is to examine the
candidates and then vote.

Your vote does matter*so does that of your friends and neighbors*.be
sure to vote*and take someone with you to the polls tomorrow.

Please feel free to forward this commentary to your friends and family,
if you think it might be helpful or of interest.

Best regards,
Sheila Kiscaden


Senator Sheila Kiscaden
District 30
325 Capitol
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-4848