Category: Minnesota Politics

by Dave Mindeman

Money pervades politics and government in oh so many ways. Even in this current deep recession, money continues to flow to political pockets -- deep and deeper.

That is why it is so disturbing that this so-called "monetary freedom of speech" is now going to invade the third branch of government, the judiciary.

Greg Wersal has made it his life's goal to make judges just another political monetary tool. The courts have ruled recently that endorsements cannot be denied in judicial elections. And with that comes money and political games.

And to furthur complicate things, the Citizen United ruling brings more unseemly possibilities via unlimited corporate money.

Can you imagine an elected judge deciding cases against a corporation that was his biggest donor? And if he or she would have the integrity to recuse themselves, what's to stop a corporation from "buying" the whole court?

Think about how different the 2008 Senate race would be if the judges involved had been beholden to political party endorsements? Appointments of judges by which governor of which party is already an instant topic of conversation in such cases, but how much worse would it be if the judges had official Party affiliations by endorsement in their election to the court?

Minnesota has managed to steer clear of this ugly business for some time, but no longer. We will have to deal with this situation in some manner. Maybe with legislation.....or maybe by Constitutional amendment.

Something has to stop the "selling" of our justice system. When we talk about the greening of Minnesota, we have to hope we are still talking about energy.....and not an increase in the paper flow of "dead Presidents".

Category: GOP Politics

by Dave Mindeman

There is a lot of ways to look at the coming onslaught of corporate donations. This flap with Target's corporate donation is giving us a preview of the arguments to be made.

I always hate the contention that unlimited money donations is akin to free speech, but we have a Supreme Court that seems to side with that interpretation, so we are stuck with it for now.

However, the flip side of that needs to be addressed. We should be entitled to know who is making those large contributions and to whom.

After all, a democracy is only as good as its informed electorate and when making voting decisions, an important aspect of what we need to know involves public record of large donors to any particular campaign.

Too often, in the past, the campaign finance laws that existed were circumvented by PAC groups disguised with inocuous names, funded by deep pocketed individuals, with stealth political agendas.

So, as the deeper pockets of corporate fingers grasp the neck of campaign finance, shouldn't our free speech rights to know and protest such massive contributions be part of the debate as well?

Which brings us to the DISCLOSE ACT (or as explained by the full name..... Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act).

This legislation would not block corporate donations, but it would, by force of law, make sure that who was giving was public knowledge. And, although this legislation has passed the House, the Republicans have a filibuster in play (again..).

If corporate donations are free speech, then why is it important that it NOT be public knowledge? Could it be that corporations are afraid of public displeasure from customers and stockholders?

The DISCLOSE ACT does have some problems:

Exemptions made for large, long-standing, non-profit groups which would not fall under the bill's disclosure requirements, such as the NRA, the AARP, and the Humane Society. The exemption was included in the House in order to gain support from moderates and conservatives.

Republicans are using these exemptions to argue against the bill and I have to say that I am troubled by them as well. There should be no exemptions....for any reason.

But it shows us how broken the methods of moving legislation have become. To even get this bill to the floor, these special interest groups had to be appeased....especially the NRA.

But, even with the flaws in this bill, we need to have this in place. Corporations are just going to move their giving to groups that do not disclose their donors. They will become conduits to finance agendas that promote their corporate or political interests. They will use profits gathered from you and me and then use that money to promote policies that could hurt you and me.

Transparency is really our only protection. And so far, that protection is hard to see through.

Category: Tim Pawlenty

by Dave Mindeman

Our soon to be ex-governor Tim Pawlenty makes a lot of statements that have a lot of tax hyperbole. Well, Politifact decided to examine the quote below and check it out for "truthiness":

"I don't think the argument can be credibly made that the United States of America is undertaxed compared to our competitors."
Tim Pawlenty, Monday, July 26th, 2010.

Verdict?



In an opinion column published the following day, Washington Post reporter Ruth Marcus took aim at Pawlenty's remark.

"Actually," Marcus wrote, "the United States is on the low end in terms of the overall tax burden -- 28 percent of gross domestic product in 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, compared with an average of 36 percent in the 30 OECD countries. Only South Korea, Mexico and Turkey were lower."

Frankly, I have a hard time believing anything that the man says anymore, regarding taxes. When he does tax something, like cigarettes, he calls it a fee. Property taxes don't seem to exist to him. And Minnesota is always a high tax state when he talks about Democrats and a fair taxed state when discussing his own record.

I think we have a credibility gap here.