Charlie Quimby Responds to “Governing and Campaigning”

I’ve written two posts [1 and 2] recently on the interplay between political campaigning and governing once in office.  Author Charlie Quimby was kind enough to write a reply, which I reprint below.  My posts touch on the 2010 contest for Minnesota governor between Mark Dayton and Tom Emmer and the revelation last week that a senior Dayton Administration official was charged with DUI.

Charlie writes,

Someone may be making the point that elections and governing are different, but that's not my point.

He adds,

I'm just going to make a couple points here summarizing why my view differs from yours.

1) I don't disagree hugely with the point that candidates should not campaign one way and then govern another.  But your example is poorly chosen.  The DUI thing is not a major policy position.  It doesn't reflect a shift from Dayton's position on how the Emmer accusation was handled.

2) You insist on hanging Dayton with a position taken by a third-party organization funded in large part by Dayton's ex-wife.  Coordinating messages with a campaign is illegal, and you don't offer anything but innuendo to show that it happened.

3) Dayton was not the party's candidate until mid-August [2010].  He was in a primary contest running against Anderson-Kelliher [and others], not Emmer.  As soon as he became the nominee, he spoke out against the ads.

4) Employers typically do not fire staff for DUIs.  It's not called hypocrisy or politics; it's modern, enlightened management.

[In response to my first post, Charlie offered an alternative to my proposed remedy, writing in part:]

If you don't like what was done to Emmer, let's ban all spending not tied to and funded by a campaign. I'd be for it.

Govern As You Campaign, Campaign As You Govern

Over the weekend I was on the receiving end of some bipartisan blowback for putting forward the idea that politicians should be held accountable for the way they campaign.  The opposing argument seems to be something along the lines of “elections are elections” and once the voting is over the winners need to govern “in the best interests” of the people, notwithstanding what may have been said on the campaign trail.

My example was Minnesota Democrat Governor Mark Dayton, who won in 2010 demagoging the drunken driving record of his opponent, Tom Emmer, but is standing behind his MNsure CEO accused of DWI.  No one seems willing to defend Dayton from a charge of hypocrisy, instead, they argue that Dayton's hypocrisy--in this instance--serves the state's interests.

The Dayton Double Standard

Let’s face facts.  Minnesota Democrat Mark Dayton is governor because he ran against his Republican opponent Tom Emmer’s decades-old DWI charges.  Never mind that Emmer was not convicted of the charge, in incidents that occurred when Emmer was 30 and 20-years-old, respectively.

The 2010 argument against Emmer went that, since he was once charged with drunk driving, he was forever disqualified from holding public office.

Democrat-front group Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM) ran television ads against Emmer in the summer of 2010, dredging up the DWI incidents.  ABM even went as far as to imply that Emmer was somehow responsible for the death of a man in 2007 [read the ad's transcript.]

Funded in no small part by members of the extended Dayton clan [Andrew Dayton ($1,000), David Dayton ($50,000), Mary Lee Dayton ($250,000), Alida Rockefeller (Dayton) Messinger ($500,000)], ABM’s slander of Emmer set new lows in Minnesota politics.  But for Minnesota’s Democrats, the ads also set a new standard that DWI charges disqualify one for public office.

Mark Dayton wanted to be seen as taking the high road, at one point in 2010 calling for a "cease fire" on negative campaign ads.  In fact, Dayton is joined at the hip with ABM, having adopted the campaign slogan "For A Better Minnesota."

Yesterday’s revelation that the interim CEO of the state agency MNsure, Scott Leitz, was charged with drunk driving back in August now puts this standard to the test.  Leitz registered a blood alcohol content of 0.18 percent—more than twice the legal limit—in a 2 a.m. traffic stop on August 17^th.

The Last Public Policy Taboo, Part 4

It was a big week for the public policy issue that dare not speak its name.

In this series [see Parts 1, 2, and 3], I’ve been developing this idea:  Minnesota’s policy elite needs to start working on contingency plans for a stagnant population, rather than the population boom they are counting on.

Bloomberg reports that for the 12 months ended June 2013, America saw the fewest births since 1998.  The birth rate also fell, setting a new all-time low.  Meanwhile, the nation set a record for the most deaths in a year.  We are quickly reaching the point where—but for immigration—America’s population would actually be shrinking.

Banana Republic, Story No. 16 Edition

The MNsure board trotted out another “accurate but fake” success story today, former House Democrat staffer Dan Kitzberger.  It turns out that MNSure’s success story No. 16 is not just a “policy director for a small nonprofit in St. Paul” (Minnesota Coalition for the Homeless), but Dan also serves on the Board of Directors of the pro-abortion 501(c)(4) nonprofit NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota.

NARAL is not as well-known as the larger Planned Parenthood, but it does its part to influence Minnesota politics.  The NARAL nonprofit operates two political funds, the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Election Fund (Fund #1) and the eponymous NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota (Fund #2).  Although the dollar amounts are not large, the names involved are quite revealing. 

Science Has Left the Building

Over the past few days, we’ve been having some fun on Twitter regarding the Democrats and “Science.”  The Democrat-controlled Minnesota Legislature is about to ban electronic cigarettes.  The Democrats (styled “DFL” in Minnesota) will accomplish this feat by declaring e-cigs to be tobacco, the physics and chemistry of the matter, notwithstanding.

In that context, political operative Brian Cook recalled this "news" story in the Minneapolis Star Tribune from a year ago.  The Star Tribune piece opened with this startling sentence,

Science made a comeback at the State Capitol on Tuesday.

Headlined “Minnesota legislators and scientists team up on climate change,” the article promises that the then newly-installed Democrat majority would elevate the role of “science” in their decision making and would tackle the issue of global warming.  In the event, they have done neither.

As I pointed out recently, Minnesota is about to miss its first statutory deadline (2015) for reducing greenhouse gasses.  State Democrats—who enjoy a complete monopoly on power—are oddly silent about the failure of one of their signature issues.

The Star Tribune wrote a year ago,

The point, Reps. Jean Wagenius and Alice Hausman said, is that the DFL-controlled House intends to base new laws and policy decisions--especially those related to climate change--on research rather than dogma.

"It's science vs. ideology," said Hausman, a DFLer from St. Paul and chairwoman of the House Capital Investment Committee, describing a debate that is going on nationally as well. "There are still some that question the science."

The Star Tribune wrote this week,

“I have not seen the scientific data that says this is dangerous if you’re simply in the same room as someone using an e-cigarette,” said Rep. Will Morgan, DFL-Burnsville. “I’m a physics teacher. I think we should rely on science for decisions like that.”

At some point in the last year, it seems, “science” has left the building.

The Big Disconnect

Oh where do we begin, the rubble or our sins?

Each year the Pew Research Center surveys Americans on their top public policy priorities.  Each year, the result comes out the same:  the economy and jobs rank as the public’s top priorities in the political sphere.  I have no reason to believe that the citizens of Minnesota share different priorities than the rest of the country.

You would assume that our elected officials--with their finger on the pulse of the voter—and our media, desperate for ratings and subscribers, would choose to give the people what they want.  Yet, they don’t.

There are Laws and Then There are Laws

In 2007, the Minnesota legislature passed a law requiring that the state reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050.  The law featured interim deadlines, including a requirement to reduce emissions by 15 percent by the 2015.

The most recent report (pdf) put out by the state government indicates that Minnesota will not meet this 2015 requirement.  We will not be close to meeting the standard.  In fact, the last report showed carbon dioxide emissions ticking up, not down.
 

The Last Public Policy Taboo, Part 3

The Zombie Economy

I’ve never quite understood the appeal of the zombie as entertainment.  [I did like Shaun of the Dead, though].

In Hollywood, vampires are out.  The zombie is in.  For my taste, I prefer the classic movie monsters: Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, the Mummy, etc.  They may have sloughed off the mortal coil, but can still summon a display of superhuman strength when the plot calls for it.

Zombies merely shuffle along, in that halting gait, with little more than a vague purpose.  They are devoid of the anima that makes your classic monster so scary.

In the first two parts of this series [Part 1 and Part 2], I develop the hypothesis that populations in Minnesota and the Twin Cities’ region are in the process of declining, rather than poised for the boom that everyone expects to occur over the next few decades.

I’ve wondered why demography is such a taboo subject in today’s politics.  To talk about demographics is to hint that today’s economy—if not the larger society—shuffles along like the original Hollywood zombie:  ambulatory, but without that fighting spirit.  Outside of a handful of locations like Williston, North Dakota, it is becoming tougher to find a sense of urgency out there.

The Last Public Policy Taboo, Part 2

The Challenges Created by Falling Birth Rates

In my first post (Part 1) in this series, I introduce the public policy topic that dare not speak its name: the dilemma caused by falling birth rates. 

Exhibit One:  The Ukraine’s falling birth rates mean that troubled nation is losing people at the rate of 150,000 per year.

The situation in this country is not nearly as dire.  Demographers look at a measure called the fertility rate.  Demographers have calculated that a rate around 2.1 will produce a stable population, over time.  A number below 2.1 is said to be below replacement rate.  For comparison, Ukraine’s fertility rate stands at 1.29.
 

The Last Public Policy Taboo, Part 1

Missing the Point

The last taboo subject in public policy is demographics.  When the talk turns to birth rates, polite company quietly exits the room.  As a result, all too often the thing we think were arguing about is not really the thing we are arguing about.

Unfortunately, and to a large extent, demography is destiny.  The world belongs to those who show up.  Ignoring that fact does not change the outcome, regardless of how uncomfortable we become when discussing the subject.

Minnesota's Radio Forum, Show No. 2

The second episode of Minnesota's Radio Forum will air Saturday March, 8, at 1 p.m. on AM 1570.  Producer Georgie Hilker has put together another great program this month.

We talk about creating jobs in Minnesota, with Bill Blazar of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and former state representative Julie Bunn of Lake Elmo.  And a real-life business owner calls in to discuss her struggles with hiring more workers.

Taxes, the skills gap, and minimum wage all get hashed out as we look for ways to put Minnesota back to work.

Disclosure, Part 3

In hindsight, the passage of same-sex marriage legislation by the 2013 Minnesota state legislature seems as if it was always a foregone conclusion.  Following the money from that time period, however, would lead one to a different conclusion.  In this Part 3, we examine the lobbying operation of Minnesotans United. (See also Part 1 and Part 2)

Minnesotans United—the $12 million powerhouse behind the 2012 defeat of the marriage amendment ballot initiative—set its sights on a legislative victory in 2013.  According to records on file at the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, Minnesota United formed a lobbying entity on January 24, 2013, and shut down operations after the legislature adjourned in May.

In five short months, under the leadership of Richard Carlbom, the group spent over $1.6 million in persuading legislators to vote in their favor, employing the services of 14 registered lobbyists.  Not only did their spending dwarf the $211,000 raised by their opponents on the marriage issue, it ranked as the largest amount spent by any single organization lobbying in 2013.
 

Disclosure, Part 2

[Updated: this post has been updated to reflect more recent campaign finance reports.]

Yesterday, I introduced the group Minnesotans United PAC, a political action committee that believes it’s on the right side of history but thinks it doesn’t need to follow the state’s campaign finance disclosure rules.  In this Part 2, I dig deeper into what the group promises, and what it delivers.

Disclosure, Part 1

The 2012 success of the political group Minnesotans United for All Families should be studied by political scientists for years to come.

As was widely reported at the time, the efforts of Minnesotans United found success—not just in defeating the proposed constitutional amendment on marriage—but also in helping to elect Democrat majorities in the state House and Senate.

Formed in 2011, in just a year and a half the group raised and spent $12 million on the 2012 election.  It was the largest amount of money raised by any group or political party during the cycle in Minnesota.

 

Ringers

[This post has been updated.  See below.]

An incident occurred this past week that deserves far more scrutiny than it has received so far.

The state’s Obamacare agency, MNsure, held a meeting of its Board of Directors last Wednesday.  As is the Board’s custom, the meeting was to begin with a story from a MNsure “customer.”

The Minnesota Jobs Coalition points out that the week’s success story turns out to be a paid consultant for the state’s Democrat party, Mike Sherman.

As I've documented before, this is not the first time (or the second) the MNsure “success” story turns out to be a partisan ringer.  But this time around, MNsure has dropped Northwoods icons Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox from its multi-million-dollar ad campaign in favor of testimonials from actual customers.

As I’ve also discussed before, the Board would be in much better shape if it listened to unsuccessful customers.  The disastrous rollout of the Affordable Care Act in Minnesota has gained the state a much-deserved national reputation for mismanagement.

[Updated:  It turns out that Mr. Sherman's insurance story has gone national.  He is featured at Organizing for Action's (OFA) Barack Obama.com site.  The photo used for "Michael" from Minnesota is the same photo Sherman uses as his profile picture on his employer's website and his Twitter profile pic.  The only question remains is "Who Found Mike First, MNsure or OFA?"  For the record, Michael tweeted his OFA-MN appearance on February 11th and his appearance at the MNsure Board meeting was scheduled for February 26.]

Now MNsure seeks to add misrepresentation to mismanagement.  If the Board cannot find success stories from somewhere other than ruling party’s payroll, then MNsure is in worse trouble than anybody believes.  Furthermore, with the hand-selected success stories turning out to be fakes—time after time—then why should we believe anything (enrollment figures, cost data, etc.) put out by MNsure?