MinnPost file photo by James Nord

Former Gov. Arne Carlson

My old boss, former Gov. Arne Carlson, thinks there’s an opportunity that goes beyond politics in the controversy over Gov. Mark Dayton’s decision to give pay raises to his commissioners.

“If they are going to postpone this decision … It gives you time to do a comprehensive survey of salaries in the public sector, including higher education,” Carlson said.

And while he thinks the Senate’s recent vote to delay the raises until July 1 is appropriate, he also supports, in principle, Dayton’s decision to give the raises. “It is difficult to run complicated departments, starting with finance,” he said.  “When I was in office, we were getting raided by the private sector constantly.”

But, he added, “It’s really of a question of being competitive with [other parts] of the public sector.

Carlson has commented frequently about the inconsistency of public salaries, particularly when it comes to compensation at the University of Minnesota.

Two years ago, Carlson noted in a blog, “The governor makes $120,000 and the university president is paid $610,000 – a gap of $490,000.” Today that gap is slightly bigger: the governor now makes $125,000; the U of M president, $625,000.

Furthermore, Carlson wrote, “The lead attorney for the university makes $295,000. That’s about $180,000 more than Minnesota’s attorney general, $95,000 more than the attorney general of the United States, and over $70,000 more than the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court… The university lobbyist who pleads the school’s case at the State Capitol earns some $60,000 more than the governor.”

In 2013, Carlson said the legislative auditor should review the university’s human resources management system.  Today, he thinks the scope of the review should be even wider. “I would do a survey that includes salaries, pensions, and benefits,” across the public sector, he said.  “You will find people in local government that make more than in state government and I was stunned at the difference in pensions.”

Such a survey could take away some of the political edge of the issue, Carlson said, talk that legislators are bound to listen to. “There’s enough political flak that legislators don’t dare raise salaries,” he said. “But then they don’t have to explain the consequences. And the consequences are that you start losing people you can’t replace.”  

Creative Commons/Mike Mozart

Minnesota's DFL and Republican parties have set March 1 as the date for their 2016 precinct caucuses.

It’s no coincidence that the date falls on so-called “Super Tuesday,” when eight other states hold their primaries and caucuses. “The March 1st date allows us to meet the respective presidential nominating calendars of each party, and we believe it will make Minnesota more relevant in the process,” said Minnesota Republican Party Chairman Keith Downey.

Prior election-year caucuses in Minnesota have been held in February. By waiting until March, Minnesota joins Colorado, which also has a caucus system, Florida, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia, which hold primaries.

The results of the Minnesota precinct caucuses are nonbinding. Delegates must proceed through higher levels of the election to gain a spot at the national conventions. But in a presidential election year, the results of a March 1 caucus will have more national significance. 

As usual, Iowa will hold the first test of the season with caucuses on Jan. 18, 2016, followed by the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 16.

Caucus and primary dates are dictated in part by the rules set up by Democratic and Republican parties, which bow to the tradition of allowing Iowa and New Hampshire to lead the election-year parade. 

Two years ago, Florida jumped the queue and set its primaries for January. As a result, the Republican Party penalized Florida with a loss of delegates while the Democratic Party threatened to do so. This year, it appears most states are playing by the rules.

Opposition to a new rule handed down by the Republican National Committee may undermine the Minnesota Republican Party’s attempt to be a bigger player in 2016 presidential politics.

According to the new RNC rule, the state party cannot conduct a non-binding presidential straw poll at the 2016 precinct caucuses — a popular and traditional party practice.

The rule, adopted at the last Republican National Convention in Tampa, states, “Any statewide presidential preference vote that permits a choice among candidates for the Republican nomination for President of the United States in a primary, caucuses, or a state convention must be used to allocate and bind the state’s delegation to the national convention.”  

Party activists protested the rule change when it was proposed in 2012—and they’re protesting it now. Party leadership will address the concerns at their next executive committee meeting on Feb. 26. “We expect to get a waiver from the rule,” says one party leader who preferred to remain unnamed until any action is taken.  

Nevertheless, opposition to the rule change puts the state GOP in a bind. The party joined the DFL in setting March 1, 2016, as the precinct caucus date specifically to put Minnesota among the states weighing in on “Super Tuesday.” 

For its part, the DFL will conduct a binding presidential preference ballot. “We’ll work hard between precinct caucuses and the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia to have a delegation that is ready to nominate the next President of the United States,” says DFL Chair Ken Martin.  

Assuming the state Republican party receives a waiver from the RNC, its choice of presidential candidate will not be determined until the final round of delegate selection at the state convention in June of 2016.   

Both national parties are trying to tighten the presidential nominating process, urging states to hold election year primaries in March. That’s a move that runs counter to the desires of many party activists, who believe that grass-roots support takes time to develop and who often resent a national party’s anointment of a frontrunner.

But even though Minnesota likely will continue to draw out its presidential preference process in 2016, the move to a March 1 caucus is seen as an incremental step to join other states in efforts to streamline the national election cycle.

MinnPost file photo by James Nord

State Sen. Sean Nienow: “The Democratic plan … there’s lot’s of money involved but it’s not going into the classroom and the schools that your children currently have.”

Despite their criticism of Gov. Mark Dayton’s proposal to spend almost $500 million dollars more on education this budget cycle, Minnesota Senate Republicans have just about matched the governor dollar-for-dollar with the education budget proposal they offered Tuesday.

There is a major difference in the two plans. While Dayton’s increase is earmarked for spending on pre-K education and adds to the per-pupil funding formula, the Senate plan comes with no strings attached.

“The Democratic plan … there’s lot’s of money involved but it’s not going into the classroom and the schools that your children currently have,” said Sen. Sean Nienow, the bill’s chief author.  “It’s going into all kind of new, mandated spending.”

The Senate Republican plan would put another $455 million into education over two years.  The plan would allocate the funding on a per-student basis, another point of differentiation from the Dayton plan, which would add to the state’s funding formula that apportions money differently based on the school district.  

Senate DFL-ers have offered bills that are similar to the Dayton proposal. House Republicans have focused so far on reforming teacher tenure and licensing.

Senate minority leader David Hann acknowledged the limited scope of his caucus’s budget proposal. “We’re trying to make this complicated education finance system a little more straightforward,” Hann said.  “It’s not a prescription of, ‘Here’s how you solve this.’”

Hann had scathing words for the Dayton education plan when it was unveiled last month.   “Where is the education reform package?” he had asked.  “Where are the new ideas?”

When asked Tuesday about the whereabouts of the Republican new ideas, he and Nienow said there was more to come. “You will see some education proposals… something very significant, looking at Minneapolis and the significant problems we have there with graduation rates, with the achievement gap,” Nienow said. 

Nienow says Republicans will offer what will be “a nation-leading proposal.” Hann, its chief author, ducked the “nation leading” description, but said his plan is unlike anything he seen in other states with sizable achievement gaps.  

Senate Republicans will roll out that plan in the next few days, along with a few others, including a tax proposal, expected tomorrow, that is dubbed the “toddler tax,” an expansion of Dayton’s child care tax credit.

A proposal by three Republican state senators to move Minnesota’s primary from August to March could effectively end the state’s caucus system.  

The proposal offered by Julianne Ortman, Scott Newman, John Pederson is intended to put Minnesota in play with other states that hold presidential primaries in March. But it would also affect the selection of a party nominee for governor. At the same time, it would also diminish the voices of party activists who prefer to choose their nominees through an endorsement process.

Republican Party Chair Keith Downey is cool to the idea. “I don’t support a March primary because the implication is that we move from a caucus to a primary system,” he said.  “I do support a June primary because [it] allows us to maintain the caucus system, have a strong primary environment that produces the strongest candidates with the highest degree of voter connection, and sets the field early enough to contrast with the other party.”

The DFL and Republican Party of Minnesota will hold their 2016 precinct caucuses on March 1. The DFL will hold a poll of Democratic presidential candidates that will bind delegates to the winner. 

The state GOP, however, is planning on holding a non-binding poll (provided it can get a waiver from the Republican National Committe to do so; the RNC recently mandated that states should follow a process similar to that of Democrats), with the selection of national delegates (and their presidential preferences) coming later, at the state convention.    

To preserve the caucus system along with a March primary, the process of selecting delegates to the state convention would have to take place in January and February, an unlikely scenario according to Downey.

Downey ran for the state legislature in 2008 when the state’s primary was held in September. In the primary, he ran against and defeated incumbent state representative Ron Erhardt of Edina, a Republican who later switched to the DFL and regained his seat. “I thought then, why am I running against my own party for nine months,” Downey said. “Moving to June makes a lot of sense.”

The DFL party did not respond to the March 1 primary proposal, but party chair Ken Martin has supported a June primary, as has DFL Governor Mark Dayton.   

Downey said in addition to the March primary proposal, he expects a bill this legislative session to move the primary to June. 

Similar bills have been offered and failed in prior legislative sessions. But with a March 1 primary bill in the mix, this year a June primary might be seen as a logical compromise.

Creative Commons/Images Money

The DFL, like the Republican Party of Minnesota, owes people money.

According to a report filed in January with Federal Elections Commission, the DFL has debt of $485,306. On the report filed with the state campaign finance board, the party shows debt of $29,373.

The DFL is certainly in better shape than the Minnesota GOP, which reported a debt of $1.01 million with the FEC and debt of $459,854 in its state filings. Much of that debt was incurred under the direction of former party chair Tony Sutton, who resigned in 2011 and left the party more than $2 million in the red.

Like most campaign operations, state parties teeter on a balance beam of cash flow during election years, spending it quickly and repaying it slowly. Republican party chair Keith Downey says the party still owes five vendors about $350,000 but that they’re on schedule for repayment. 

That the DFL and state GOP incurred election year debt is not unusual — nor it is strange that vendors want their fees paid immediately.  What is curious is the way two vendors, as reported by the Star Tribune, publicized their bills in separate but similarly worded emails sent to members of the GOP’s executive committee.

Arena Communications and Singularis Group were hired to provided direct mail voter contact on behalf of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike McFadden and Eighth District congressional candidate Stewart Mills III. 

According to a member of the state GOP executive committee who prefers to be unnamed, those vendors have not been paid in full — but they have been paid.  “Every vendor we have to pay, but it’s not necessarily in lump sums,” he said. Arena Communications, he said, has already been paid $314,000 for its work.

Party sources have a range of theories as to why a routine part of campaign bookkeeping was made public, including disputes over the GOP’s 2014 election strategy, frustration with the election outcome, and concern that party debt remains high.

But the publicity will not change the way Arena and other vendors will be paid, they said.  When it became clear to national Republican groups that McFadden and Mills were going to lose, the money dried up. And that put national vendors on payment schedules, just like many of the vendors the party deals with.

The Senate Republican caucus today will offer a plan to split the Minneapolis public school district into six districts, in an effort to make it more nimble in addressing such issues as the achievement gap.

“One of the inspirations was a MinnPost interview with [departing Minneapolis school board member] Alberto Monserrate where he described the district as a bureaucratic nightmare that no one can overcome,” said state Sen. David Hann, the senate minority leader and chief author of the bill. 

“Everybody that I’ve talked to agrees that we need to find a way to streamline decision-making and focus on the classroom,” he says. “When you have this situation in large districts like Minneapolis, the answer is to make them smaller, more responsive… so families can have more impact.”

Under the proposal, the Minneapolis school board would be authorized to determine the composition of the six districts. The six districts would choose a superintendent, hold school board elections, and decide whether it wants unionized or non-unionized teachers, among many issues. The districts would be free of state mandates.

The legislature, Hann said, has authority to do this, stemming from a statute that allows the legislature to consolidate school districts when necessary.

Hann says he’s reached out to Monserrate and sent him a copy of the bill. He’s also had discussions with Peter Hutchinson, who has experience running Minneapolis schools. Hann has not had conversations with DFLers in the state senate, but, he said, “there’s nothing partisan about this. This is a proposal to change a structure that most people believe has some problems that need to be resolved.” 

Non-partisan perhaps, but the bill would not give the Minneapolis school district a choice in the matter. The school board would need to comply by a certain date and if it doesn't, the bill would authorize the governor to step in. “Just so you don’t have an interminable process to figure this out,” Hann said.

It’s a pilot plan and not a guarantee that it would result in improvements in the achievement gap, but Hann feels it’s an option more school districts would try if given the opportunity.

An ad campaign by the Republican Party of Minnesota urging the Legislature to return the state’s entire $1.9 billion surplus to taxpayers definitely struck a nerve with DFL Party Chair Ken Martin.

In response to a Republican news conference outlining the "Give it Back" campaign, Martin called the campaign, “the height of hypocrisy…. [Republican Party chair] Keith Downey has taken a position that is wildly different than the highest ranking Republican in the state.”

Martin was referring to Speaker of House Kurt Daudt’s comments that nursing homes and schools should be high on the receiving end of some of that surplus, though Daudt has also indicated that at least half of that surplus and “probably a lot more than that” should be targeted to tax relief.

That didn’t stop Martin from insisting that the GOP party and Downey were acting like “party bosses trying to pull the strings and call the shots,” and enforcing “ideological purity.”     

Then it was Martin’s turn to spin party ideology, describing Republican spending priorities as, “continued disinvestment in education, transportation.” 

“We actually started to turn the corner on these critical areas,” he said. “I’m outraged because I care about seeing something happen that actually benefits the people of this state.”

For his part, Downey maintains the campaign is “educational” in nature and not an end-run to dictate legislative policy. But Downey is also treading where former party chair Tony Sutton made enemies among Republican legislators.  

In 2011, Sutton demanded that Republicans oppose any new means of revenue, like gambling, that was intended to fund a new Vikings stadium. Many Republican lawmakers were already on board with gambling expansion efforts and responded coolly to Sutton’s implied threats. 

Downey said it would be up to legislators to decide the amount and nature of any tax cuts, adding that, “the people of Minnesota don’t really know. Do they really know that that the two billion dollar tax increase [enacted in 2013] has now resulted in a two billion dollar surplus?”

The GOP ad, which cost the party $150,000, will run one week on cable, broadcast and Internet outlets.

Despite Martin’s protest that the Republicans should not be entering this arena of debate, he didn’t rule out that the DFL would reply in kind.

Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt and Senate Minority Leader David Hann were in the loop about the new ad campaign being run by the Republican Party of Minnesota urging lawmakers to return the entirety of the state’s $1.9 billion budget surplus to taxpayers. 

“We were very transparent,” about the ad, said Party Chair Keith Downey. “We’ve been talking to legislative leadership. They understand the party has a job and role different than theirs.”  

Yet that hasn’t prevented some disgruntlement among some legislators — many of whom have their own spending priorities — over the campaign. 

“I’ve heard a little,” said former Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch. “You’re definitely going to get the ‘Don’t tell me what to do’ response,” she said. “Individual legislators are going to be worried about their district concerns or about using some of the surplus for transportation, specifically.” 

Koch should know. In 2011, she was on the receiving end of a message from then-party chair Tony Sutton — a letter to legislators urging Republicans to “resist any revenue enhancement proposals … that not only violate our principles but are bad politics and bad public policy.”

Is the Republican Party ad similar to the Sutton letter?  “I don’t know that it does differ,” said Koch.

Certainly, the reaction of DFL Party Chair Ken Martin hasn’t changed. When asked about the Sutton letter in March 2011, Martin told MinnPost: “It’s not up to the chair of the party to control what happens at the Legislature.”  

“The fact is that Chairman Downey should do his job of building the party to win elections and focus less on taking positions such as this which are squarely at odds with the highest ranking elected Republican in the State of Minnesota,” Martin said yesterday in response to the GOP’s “Give It Back” campaign. 

The more things change, the more they remain the same. The DFL maintains its juggling act of accommodating its liberal and conservative wings, while the Republicans try to balance legislators’ different interests while maintaining allegiance to core principles, especially lowering government spending. 

Tony Sutton

According to Koch, Republican Party leaders tend to be activists, and “Keith has definitely thrown himself into the activist role by putting himself in the ad,” referring to Downey’s role as the ad’s narrator.   

But the GOP ad differs in one significant aspect from the Sutton letter.  The latter was an ad hominem warning that came in the spring of 2011, just a few months after the Republican Party had banished a group of moderates for not supporting gubernatorial candidate (now U.S. Rep.) Tom Emmer. 

“Our message is directly to the people, not to the legislators,” Downey said, pointing out that the party didn’t need to spend $150,000 to reach Republican legislators directly.    

Downey said the ad is simply making the case that taxpayers deserve a break when a $2 billion tax increase in 2013 resulted in a nearly $2 billion surplus in 2015.  

Still, legislators watch TV and go online too. Will this ad pressure them indirectly?  

Downey acknowledges it could.

“The House leadership comes out with their budget targets on March 23 and that will be the outline of their budget proposal, “ he said. “Our hope is that shining a light on this issue broadly to the public will have an impact on the debate that occurs from there.”

Wisconsin governor and possible presidential candidate Scott Walker appears to be firming up his standing among Minnesota Republicans, with a special appeal to the state’s staunchest conservatives.

As MinnPost's Eric Black has observed, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, a presidential candidate himself in 2010, has joined the pundit pack in declaring Walker as the candidate who can unite the far-right factions of the Republican party. 

The Minnesota Tea Party Alliance has already praised Walker for his signing Wisconsin’s right-to-work legislation. And in April, Walker will headline an event for the Freedom Club, a group of influential and wealthy conservatives.

Charles Franklin, the director of the Marquette University Law School Poll, which has tracked Walker for almost a decade, agrees with the conclusion that Walker has appeals to hardline conservatives in a way that Jeb Bush does not — though not because Walker sprang from that wing of the party.  

“It’s important to note that Walker did not grow out of the Tea Party movement as much as the establishment wing of the party,” Franklin said. As proof, Franklin goes back to Walker’s first foray into statewide Wisconsin politics when he sought and lost the GOP endorsement for governor in 2006. “He didn’t challenge [endorsee] Mark Green but dropped out of the race and campaigned for him,” Franklin said.

Franklin ticked off a list of Walker's other center-right credentials, starting with good relations with the business community. “Far from scaring the business community in Wisconsin, they feel in the end they will do the right thing from their point of view,” he said.

Within Wisconsin’s borders, Franklin says, Walker has downplayed his rhetoric on inflammatory issues like abortion and right-to-work laws.

Walker signed an anti-abortion bill requiring an ultrasound for any woman seeking an abortion. But in an ad during his 2014 re-election campaign, while stating clearly that he is pro-life, Walker said the final decision is between a woman and her doctor.

According to Franklin, Walker signed right-to-work legislation, pushed by Wisconsin’s Republican legislators, with minimal fanfare. “I agree there’s a shift to the right,” Franklin said about Walker’s tendency to promote highlight these positions before conservative audiences in Iowa and New Hampshire. “But it’s more being willing to be explicit about positions than what he wasn’t explicit on before.”

Wisconsin voters, Franklin said, are more willing to accept Walker’s ambiguities than national political reporters and Republican rivals, though it's an open question of how well that tactic will work going forward. “Does what has worked very well in Wisconsin work as well on the presidential campaign trail?” Franklin asked. And will Wisconsin voters continue to give their governor such leeway?

Wisconsin may have that answer in a month or two when Marquette University Law School conducts its next poll, the first since Walker started his high-level of out-of-state campaigning, Franklin said.  “We’ll learn how his ambitions have affected his standing at home.” 

If there was any question that legislative Republicans are serious about “giving back” at least some of the state budget surplus, it was answered with the transportation-funding proposal they unveiled Monday.

Republican leaders offered a plan that spends $7 billion over ten years but does not raise any kind of tax and, more significantly, uses only $228 million from the state’s current $1.9 billion budget surplus. 

That leaves plenty of room and money for House Republicans to offer tax cuts when they issue their broad budget plan today. And it underscores the Republican argument that the state can spend more on certain priorities without raising taxes.

To fund transportation, Republicans would create a new $3 billion account consisting of existing transportation-related revenue like taxes on auto parts, rental vehicles, and car leasing. The plan also calls for approximately $2.25 billion to be generated in bonding and $1.2 billion from an unspecified “realigning” of existing MnDOT resources. And then, $228 million from the general fund surplus would be used for a “one-time infusion.”

The governor’s office has already labeled the proposal “shift and gift,” meaning Republicans have decided to fund new transportation priorities with existing taxes that now pay for other state spending.

But DFLers seem pleased that Republicans have come up with a plan at all, especially one that approaches Gov. Dayton’s more expansive proposal.

The governor’s and Senate DFL plan is more transparent and more expensive — an $11 billion, ten year plan that’s paid for with a gas tax increase of 16 cents per gallon, a higher metro area sales tax, and higher license tab fees.

A compromise on transportation could require Republicans to cross the no-tax line that is the cornerstone of their plan.

Still, this proposal accomplishes what Republicans say the state should be doing in this time of budget surpluses — prioritizing spending to not only avoid new taxes but send some of that extra revenue back to taxpayers.

Brandon Sawalich

The Freedom Club, a powerful group of conservative activists, is losing its president. Brandon Sawalich is leaving his leadership post and the group’s executive committee to focus on his family and his job as senior vice president of Starkey Hearing Technologies.

Last year, the club’s political action committee raised and spent more than $1.2 million to elect Republican candidates, focusing on candidates for the Minnesota House.

The Freedom Club was founded in the mid-90s by Bob Cummins, the CEO and President of the Plymouth-based Primera Technology, whose passion for conservatism is matched only by his passion for privacy.    

When Sawalich took over as president in 2011, the club and its members became more transparent, in part because Sawalich, 39, appreciated and used social media to advance the club’s causes.

In that spirit, Sawalich agreed to an interview with MinnPost to talk about his tenure at the Freedom Club. 

MinnPost: What was your goal when you became the Freedom Club president? 

Brandon Sawalich: I wanted our goals to be clear and simple: grow the membership by 20 percent; increase member engagement on our strategies; get Republicans who represented our groups values elected. I’m proud of what we achieved over the last four years — our membership is at an all time high, our meetings are vibrant and at room capacity. We have played key roles in winning select elections the last two election cycles.  

MP: The Freedom Club says it’s “dedicated to the cause of freedom.”  What does that mean?

Sawalich: It’s meant to be a broad statement. Our main area of focus is economic freedom. I don’t think it’s much of a secret plan; it is what members of our club are passionate about having a voice on — less government involvement and less taxes. Minnesota is rich in history of successful Fortune 500 companies all the way to small independent businesses. We believe business owners can make better decisions on their businesses with less government involvement and fewer taxes. 

MP: Can liberals be dedicated to the cause of freedom as well as conservatives?

Sawalich: Absolutely. We are all proud Americans, proud Minnesotans who believe in freedom and exercise our liberties by joining clubs, political parties or remaining independent, to choose how best to voice what’s important. America was founded on freedom and political opinions are what drive us to make America the greatest nation in the world. 

MP: The Freedom Club was seen as a secretive, exclusive group. But now it’s much morevisible, mainly through social media.  Is that because of you?

BS: One of my goals with the Freedom Club executive committee was to be more visible to the public. We wanted to get out of being “behind the curtain.” We have invested resources and time into social media, traditional media and a website for more visibility on who we are. It takes a team to accomplish this goal and we wanted to walk before we run. We have made progress. 

MP: What don’t people understand about the Freedom Club? 

Sawalich: To some people’s disappointment, there is no secret handshake or password at the Freedom Club. We're a smaller club of Minnesota business leaders who support campaigns and causes each election cycle. As I mentioned previously, we haven’t always been public in our opinions. When you choose to say “no comment” people will fill in the blanks with their perception and talk track. I always say if they’re talking about you — you must be doing something right. Our members are likable, dedicated, service-minded people. 

MP: The Freedom Club took some heat when it sponsored gubernatorial and U.S. Senate debates but closed the doors to non-members, including media. What was the reason for that?

Sawalich: Our debates were held during our monthly Freedom Club meeting. It was organized for our members and all our monthly meetings and dinners are private member only meetings. The Freedom Club had been consistent on this policy even before I was a member — its part of the value of being a member.

MP: Will that policy ever change?

Sawalich: The executive committee will again have the opportunity to decide if this is a policy worth changing.

MP: Freedom club wants to elect conservative/Republican candidates.  How does the Freedom Club help that cause aside from money?

Sawalich: We all know money is a factor in all elections, whether you’re Republican or Democrat. We have a fundraising budget we hit every year to support selected elections. Many members of the club engage in other candidate activities either as a group or an individual. We support grassroots efforts as well. Our members make phone calls, knock on doors and participate in focus groups. 

MP: There’s been a push among Republicans to coordinate their election year efforts, along the lines of Alliance for a Better Minnesota.  But you’ve indicated the Freedom Club prefers to remain an independent voice.  Why is that?

Sawalich: We do focus our resources on strategies on what we believe in. The Freedom Club supports other Minnesota conservative groups and meets with its leaders. I do believe we can accomplish more by working together than alone. If we’re going to win elections we need to collaborate as a team. I feel over the last couple years, we’ve done a good job collaborating with other groups as our values align. 

MP: You were finance chair for the Minnesota Republican Party and resigned that post last year.  Now you are leaving as president of the Freedom Club.  Does this indicate a fatigue or frustration with politics?

Sawalich: No, not at all. I committed to Chairman [Keith] Downey one year as the Finance Chairman to support the MNGOP efforts and help get the party headed in the right direction financially. We did well in one year and they continue to build. I’ve served two terms as President of the Freedom Club. I wanted to give someone else an opportunity to come in with new energy and ideas. 

MP: What’s your next likely step in political involvement?

Sawalich: I will continue to focus on my family and job at Starkey Hearing Technologies. I will let the game come to me and see what arises. I’m not out actively looking for a next move. 

Bill Jungbauer

Republican Party of Minnesota Chair Keith Downey has a challenger for re-election to his post as leader of the state GOP.

Bill Jungbauer, a member of the party’s executive committee, said he will run for party chair, citing the party’s “secrecy and elitism.” 

Jungbauer, who just stepped down as chair of the party’s 2nd Congressional District, made it clear that the reason’s he’s running is because he objects to Downey’s leadership style. “This is a grass roots party.  It belongs to the people,” he said.  “I believe he [Downey] is using the chairmanship as a vehicle for his own run for governor.”

Downey responded that while he welcomes a challenger into the race, “hopefully, we can stay away form the negative attacks.” Downey’s notes that he has been endorsed by 13 of the 15 members of the party’s executive committee.

The party debt, the failure to elect any Republicans to statewide office, and the “Give it Back” campaign — featuring Downey in a commercial urging the legislature to offer tax rebates — were all factors in a decision to challenge Downey, Jungbauer said. “[Downey] claims to have paid down debt but he racked it right up too,” Jungbauer said. “In effect, the gains have been minimal.”

Downey characterizes the challenge as a protest candidacy.  “Bill comes from the 2nd Congressional District, which had a strong effort to unseat Congressman John Kline,” Downey said. “That Bill represented this district is part of his protest.”

The Minnesota GOP executive team, including party chair, will be elected April 11 at a meeting of the party’s state central committee.   

With one word added to the law allowing same-sex marriages in Minnesota, a former legislator helped the state to circumvent the furor from the right and the left that surrounded the original Indiana religious freedom law.

In 2013, Republican David FitzSimmons, now chief of staff to Rep. Tom Emmer, offered an amendment to the legislation that passed in the DFL-dominated legislature with four Republican votes, including his. The amendment added the word “civil” before the word marriage whenever it appears in state law.

As a result, Minnesota’s Freedom to Marry Act allows same-sex marriage — but it also allows churches to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage and to refuse the use of religious facilities.

For some cultural conservatives, FitzSimmons amendment still fell short of true religious protection. “It doesn’t deal with the photographer that doesn’t want to photograph same-sex marriages, with school officials, with government officials, with marriage counselors,” said Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council, at the time of the bill passage.

That was the intent of the original Indiana law, which placed businesses under the umbrella of religious protection if faith could be proven as a reason for a discriminatory practice. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a revision of the law that specifies that businesses cannot deny service to gay patrons.

Former state Rep. David FitzSimmons

Unlike Minnesota, Indiana does not have a law specifically banning discrimination against gay and lesbians. In 1993, Republican Gov. Arne Carlson signed the law that amended the state’s Human Rights Act to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in education, employment, public services, and public accommodations.

That law allowed FitzSimmons, and the legislative majority that voted for the bill, to narrowly define the use of religious protection, and to reassure civil rights advocates that it could not be used as an excuse for discrimination.

The Freedom to Marry Act has not been challenged in court, and for the most part, Republicans who opposed the bill have moved on. All the Republican candidates for governor in 2014 said they would make no attempt to overturn the law.

There was one notable exception to the paucity of political fallout: David FitzSimmons.  His amendment and his yes vote for same-sex marriage forced him into a district battle that cost him the Republican endorsement and his seat in the Minnesota legislature.

The libertarian wing of the Minnesota GOP is stirring the political pot again, with two candidates challenging Keith Downey for party chair in an election that will be decided at the state central committee meeting on Saturday.

Neil Lynch, chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota, said he’s taking on Downey because, “Our party has been in decline for some time. Voters — especially younger voters — aren't buying our message anymore, and many longtime donors have stopped supporting us.”

Bill Jungbauer, who until recently was chair of the GOP’s Second Congressional District, says he too will appeal to the party’s need to attract younger voters who want to hear the libertarian message of small government, debt reduction, and limits on social policies.

In the past, Republican delegates with libertarian leanings have won victories in such intra-party battles. In 2012, for example, libertarians exerted enough force to push Kurt Bills, a schoolteacher with limited political experience, into a race against U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar. Bills went on to be crushed by Klobuchar in the general election that November.

That same year, activists from the libertarian wing sent delegates to the Republican National Convention to vote for Ron Paul instead of nominee Mitt Romney. 

In 2014, libertarian delegates to the state convention backed St. Louis County commissioner Chris Dahlberg for U.S. Senate until the bitter end of a nomination battle that Dahlberg eventually conceded to Mike McFadden.

Like their national counterparts, Minnesota’s libertarian-leaning GOPers are a motley group.  Some are passionate about limited foreign policy, a flat tax and rigid fiscal conservatism. A few are basically Republican moderates who advocate limited government but who believe social issues like gay rights and abortion do not belong in political debate.

For the traditional party activists, Republican libertarians are, at their core, contrarians. Both Jungbauer and Lynch talk about giving their party “alternatives” to the current leadership structure.  Both express frustration with party’s continued debt. 

And while it’s unclear whether either man can deny Downey a second term as party chair, it is clear that the libertarian wing of the party intends to play a role in how the party moves forward.  

MinnPost photo by Brian Halliday

Keith Downey

In the end, it wasn’t much of a contest. The Republican Party of Minnesota showed united support for its leadership, re-electing Keith Downey to a second term as chair with 68 percent of the vote of 342 party activists who attended a state central committee meeting Saturday.

Downey had been challenged by Bill Jungbauer and Neil Lynch, two men who represent the more libertarian wing of the party. Both asserted that the party was failing to attract younger and more diverse voters. 

Lynch, a software engineer, said the party had a “product problem,” trying to sell its policies to a younger generation voters that disagrees with Republican cultural values.  Those younger voters, Lynch said, believe that “government should stay out of your wallet and your bedroom.”

But a group of activists that included a libertarian favorite, state senator Dave Thompson, and Angie Hasek, president of the Minnesota College Republicans, offered Downey’s name in nomination.

In his brief speech to the delegates, Downey maintained that the party has turned around, systematically taken steps to retiring its debt – now at $1.3 million – and helping elect a Republican majority to the Minnesota House.

His challengers, he said in an interview,  “raise important issues.” 

As to the party’s efforts to include a diverse group of voters, Downey said Republican issues do have appeal.  “Young people care about their future and their opportunities and their being able to write their own script,” he said.  

But, he added, “We do have to be more intentional and get back in front of them and to that point, I couldn’t agree more with Neil [Lynch] that we need to do more.” 

The delegates also elected Chris Fields to a second term as deputy chair.

Michelle MacDonald

The Minnesota Republican party appears to be serious about changing the way it handles endorsements of judicial candidates, a move precipitated by the political circus created around Michelle MacDonald’s bid for the state Supreme Court last year.

In a survey taken at the party’s state central committee meeting last weekend, 68 percent of the delegates indicated they wanted a change from the current procedure, which bypasses the party’s nominating committee in favor a special judicial selection committee.  

The survey offered the delegates four options: no change; requiring judicial candidates to go through the traditional nominating committee; making judicial endorsements at the congressional district level; or eliminating judicial endorsements altogether.   

The largest vote getter — 26 percent — was actually in favor of eliminating, which would align the GOP with the DFL’s policy of not making judicial endorsements. 

The seeds of discontent with the Republican selection process were planted a year ago at the state convention in Rochester.  Along with an endorsement for governor and U.S. Senator, the convention endorsed a Supreme Court candidate, attorney Michelle MacDonald.

Unbeknownst to the delegates, however, was MacDonald’s legal history, which included an arrest for drunk driving and an incident of forcible removal from a courtroom during her defense of a client. 

Yet the twenty members of the judicial selection committee did know of MacDonald’s record when they offered her name for endorsement, but a majority of the committee voted to withhold the information from the convention floor. 

What followed was a political mash-up worthy of the Keystone Kops.  The Republican Party did not rescind the endorsement, but it quickly distanced itself from MacDonald, including banning her from the party booth at the State Fair. MacDonald showed up anyway, making sure the media was in attendance as she was removed from the premises.

U.S. Senate candidate Mike McFadden and gubernatorial candidate Jeff Johnson, who earlier had pledged allegiance to endorsed candidates, were forced to disavow MacDonald.

MacDonald, meanwhile, claimed to receive threatening phone calls from a party insider asking her to step aside.  She filed a complaint against the Republican Party, that was ultimately dismissed.  

As for the drunk driving arrest, MacDonald was eventually found guilty of refusing to take breathalyzer test and speeding, but not the charge of drunk driving.

In November, MacDonald lost the Supreme Court race to David Lillehaug by seven points — but remains a heroine to many in the party who are convinced the judicial system is stacked against them. 

As first reported by Michael Brodkorb, MacDonald has applied with Gov. Dayton’s office to be appointed to the Minnesota Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice Alan Page. 

The Republican Party is taking to steps to ensure that its next political celebrity is known for less controversial reasons.  Although the survey of central committee delegates is only advisory, it’s highly likely that the party’s by-laws on judicial selection will undergo a change the next time Republicans gather for a state convention, which could be as early as this fall. 

The end of the legislative session, May 18, is a little more than three weeks away. In the Legislative Standard Time zone, there should be plenty of working hours remaining for the DFL governor, the DFL-dominated Senate and the Republican-controlled House to agree on a budget.

But with Gov. Dayton “unbound,” DFL senators not walking in lockstep, and a Republican House that needs to flex political muscle, the road to agreement may be as difficult to navigate as it was in 2011, when Dayton and the Republicans who then controlled both chambers forced a government shutdown.

Curt Johnson, who has led both the Citizens League and the Metropolitan Council, was chief of staff to Gov. Arne Carlson in 1994. At the time, Carlson, a Republican running for re-election, faced a similar distribution of power, with DFlers controlling the Senate and Republicans controlling the House. I asked Johnson, who I worked with in the governor’s office, for his thoughts on bringing together irresistible objects and immoveable forces in the next few weeks. 

First, Johnson said, acknowledge the reality that everybody needs something. “I’ll preface what I'm saying that, unless I'm romanticizing the past, in the days when we were doing our jobs, there was a sense of the need to find common ground. My sense is, today, people on the right and left must take a stand — even if it undermines progress, even if it stymies sensible solutions.

“If I were facing this today, I would try to find out: what is it that each side has to take home? They are going to have to compromise, so who has to have what?”

Tax cuts, transportation, and education are hurdles, Johnson said, but they are also opportunities.

On tax reduction, he said, Dayton should give a little — and a little is about all that is affordable. “The Republicans have got to take credit for some reduction in taxes, although they cannot get as much as they want because they don’t have as much money as they believe there is in the surplus. They count inflation on revenue, but not on spending.”  

Education is more complicated, Johnson said. “Dayton seems, more than any governor I've ever known, incredibly deferential to his education commissioner and incredibly intimidated by Education Minnesota [the teacher’s union]. He should go along with the DFL Senate and Republican plan to offer early childhood education scholarships. Universal pre-K education may be affordable now, but you have to think about the tails. It’s an investment that needs to be targeted. In the end, K-12 education will end up getting a better shake if they let go of universal pre-K and direct that money into the basic education formula.”

LinkedIn

Curt Johnson

On a transportation plan, Johnson sides with the DFL. “This is where the Republicans have their head in the sand,” he said. “They are not paying attention to the profile of the millennial generation that wants good, public transportation. If we persist in this notion that it’s only roads and bridges, we will not have a metro area that is going to be competitive. This should be a conservative idea. I realize the election revitalized the prospects of rural Minnesota, but a competitive metro area benefits the whole state, and if we can’t compete, it’s going to hurt in Baudette, in Detroit lakes. They are going to feel it over.”

So, who starts the ball rolling when it comes to compromise? “The governor has latitude,” Johnson said. “He’s has a big runway, another three years in office, and he’s not running again. He has the status to be magnanimous. Kurt Daudt may be the most reasonable speaker of the House we’ve had in some time. As for [Senate majority leader] Tom Bakk, the governor’s relationship with him is layered with Shakespearean intrigue.

“Somebody has got to say there's a lot at stake, that people have to make these strong stands, but we’ve got to come to a resolution on behalf of the people of the state. The governor has more political freedom to do that and everything to gain.”

On whether all sides will agree by the May 18 adjournment:  “The only class of people that are more driven by deadlines than journalists are politicians,” said Johnson. “They can’t get it done until it’s almost too late.” 

Former Minnesota secretary of state Joan Growe and former state Sen. Becky Lourey have many similarities.  Both are DFLers. Both have been candidates for higher office (Growe for the U.S. Senate, Lourey for governor).  Both are considered groundbreakers among women in politics.    

But they have one striking difference. Growe supports Hillary Clinton for president. Lourey does not. And they are equally passionate about their positions.

“I’m just very worried about her being our commander in chief,” Lourey said of Clinton. 

Specifically, Lourey objects to Clinton’s vote as a U.S. senator in 2002 to authorize the war in Iraq. Lourey had been an activist against the war. Her opposition strengthened after her son Matt was killed in 2005 when his Army helicopter was shot down about 35 miles north of Baghdad.  

“If I could read the back pages of the New York Times, and read the articles that said there were no weapons of mass destruction, why wasn’t this senator doing that? Why wasn’t she looking at that documentation and examining it harder?” Lourey wonders.  “She should have been a voice for the truth.”

Her doubts about Clinton actually go back much further. As a state representative and state senator, Lourey represented the dairy farmers of Kerrick who objected to the use of the bovine growth hormone, first developed and marketed by Monsanto.    

The Clinton administration approved use of the hormone in 1993 in an FDA decision that critics say was influenced greatly by Hillary Clinton’s work with Monsanto during her days as an attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Lourey has no doubts about the Hillary Clinton clout.  “With her connection and her family’s connection with the Rose Law firm, whose clients were Monsanto and Wal-Mart, under the Clinton administration they benefitted greatly on public policy,” Lourey said.

Lourey persuaded the Minnesota Legislature to pass a law allowing farmers to label their milk as hormone free but, she recalled, “Monsanto fought us hard.”

Growe is equally ardent in backing Clinton.

“She’s strong and knowledgeable about foreign policy issues. She knows leaders, she knows staff,” Growe said.  “On domestic issues, she’s been in the Senate.  She has a good sense of what the middle class needs and wants.”

And Clinton is a woman. 

“In my mind, it’s a plus that she’s a woman. Statistically, it’s been proven that the more women gain top positions, the more other women are inspired to do the same,” Growe said.  “I think she really, really cares about women and children.  I think she’s a terrific role model and that will help in those nations where governments have oppressed women.”

Does it bother Growe that, as secretary of state, Clinton had to pacify some of those governments?

“That’s part of being the secretary of state,” she replied. 

What about the Clinton power plays?

Growe shrugs off these concerns.  “Anyone who is successful is self serving. Don’t we all use our contacts to get ourselves ahead?”

Does the Iraq war vote concern her?

 “I didn’t agree with her on the vote but I’m not going to hold that against her,” she said.

But while Growe sets asides concerns in favor of what she calls “the bigger picture,” Lourey cannot walk away from Clinton’s past.

“These things aren’t old to me; they are as new to me as ever,” Lourey said.  “These things never fade for me.”

And that is the crux of the divide between two of the state’s most visible women leaders about the woman who may be the next leader of the United States.

Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina is reaching out to key members of her party, among them Janet Beihoffer, national committeewoman of the Minnesota Republican Party.

Beihoffer joined in a teleconference town hall with Fiorina on Wednesday. Her assessment: “She can play with the guys. She can play in that league.”

Janet Beihoffer

As a party officer, Beihoffer has no allegiance to any Republican candidate at this time and extols the diversity and talent of the Republican field in general. But she allowed that she had a “positive impression” of Fiorina, who is the first woman to join the field of GOP presidential candidates.

“I think what she brings to the table is that she has worked in an industry that has created jobs,” Beihoffer said. “And she has worked to solve problems through technology.”

Beihoffer said the hand picked participants in the hour-long phone discussion did not quiz Fiorina about her time as the CEO of Hewlett Packard, a period of leadership that has often been described as rocky.

But Beihoffer, a veteran of IBM, said the tech industry offers a unique platform for problem solving that Fiorina would find useful as the nation’s chief executive.

“When you’re in the computer industry, you’re exposed to finance, manufacturing, retail sales,” she said.  “You’re exposed to a lot really top-level people – people who make their decisions work and people who don’t.”

Fiorina gave broad-stroke responses to questions, Beihoffer said, like her take on increasing jobs.

“[Fiorina] said her focus would be small businesses, that they are the key to economic recovery,” she said.“[But] she was comfortable with all the questions.  She obviously has done a lot of prep.”

That Fiorina is a woman, the straight on contrast to Hillary Clinton, will not matter as much to Republican voters as it does to Democrats, according to Beihoffer.  “Democrats have quotas,” she said.  “Republicans will just look for someone to undo the mess they perceive we are in.”

Still, Beihoffer says on Saturday, at a meeting of the Minnesota Federation of Republican Women, she’s going to take an informal poll of the women in attendance.

“Maybe a question like, ‘Do you think this is a plus or minus for Republicans and why,’ ” she said.

The results could be informative, she said. “This is going to be very interesting to watch.”