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.

 

But if you look carefully at the group’s 2012 annual report, on file with the state’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, an interesting pattern emerges.

In 2012 alone, Minnesotans United raised more than $10 million, with $7.85 million from donors large enough that they had to be individually identified.

State campaign finance regulations require that, above a certain dollar amount, a donor’s name, address, and employer must be disclosed.  Looking at Minnesotans United 2012 report, you will notice that employer information for a number of donors is missing.  It’s not missing for just one or two donors scattered over the 1,745 page report.  Employer data is missing, in some cases, for one or two donors per page.

Many donors are listed under the categories of “retired,” “unemployed,” “homemaker,” or “none.”  That is not what I am talking about.  I’m talking about large donors for whom the employment line is completely missing or listed as “N.A.”

The group reopened in May 2013 under the banner Minnesotans United PAC, with a new chair and treasurer, a new address and phone number, a new bank, but the same sloppy recordkeeping.

In the Minnesotans United PAC’s 2013 filing, you need reach only page 3 before finding a donor with missing employment information.  By my count, the PAC is missing employment information for 81 donors representing $98,660 in donations.

The largest single omission is for Colorado software-millionaire Tim Gill, who donated $50,000.

The PAC raised a total of $454,223.12 in a mere 8 months of existence in 2013.  A total of $222,680 was from itemized donors.  So the donors with missing employment data represent 44.3 percent of the total itemized dollars. 

Current campaign finance regulations for political groups include the following provisions, 

For contributions that are more than $200, you must record the same information required for contributions over $20 but not more than $200.  In addition, you must record the donor’s employer or, if self-employed, the donor’s occupation.  

Failure to follow these requirements can result in penalties and fines.  The PAC has both the paid staff and the resources available to comply with the law.

What should be done about this failure to disclose?  The original Minnesotans United group no longer exists, its account balance run down to zero. 

Here we have an entity, created in 2011, which raises $12 million, determines Minnesota’s politics for years to come, fails to follow campaign finance regulations, disbands in 2013 and escapes accountability.

We seem to have found a giant loophole in Minnesota’s campaign finance regulations:  create a short-lived entity and then disappear into the night.

The replacement PAC seeks to influence the outcome of the 2014 election for the state House of Representatives.  Unfortunately the PAC seems to have little interest in complying with the state’s campaign finance disclosure laws.

Many of the PAC’s donors are out-of-state.  Furthermore, the nearly $100,000 in unaccounted-for donor employers represents a sum larger than just about all campaigns for state representative will raise and spend on the 2014 election.

If we are serious about campaign finance then the law should be applied equally to all entities.  Just because a group’s cause is considered laudable or its positions on the issues are thought to be on the correct side of history should provide no exemption from disclosure laws.

Minnesotans have a right to know just who is buying our elections and who those donors represent.

In Part 2, we take a look at United, what they promised, and what they have delivered.  In Part 3, we dive into United's formidable lobbying operations.