The 2014 race for Minnesota governor is now well underway. Spending by candidates in the 2010 race for governor set a record, topping $20 million.
More remarkable than that staggering figure was the spending on Minnesota political charity groups trying to influence state government action after the 2010 election.
Combing through filings at the IRS for the year 2011—the most recent year available—I traced a total of $21 million donated to Minnesota-related groups to influence state public policy.
Think about it: the process for selecting our state’s top leader requires every dollar to be accounted for and disclosed for all but the smallest individual donations.
The process for implementing subsequent state policy attracts even more money, but with virtually no tracking and disclosure to the public.
I examined IRS Form 990 filings for 14 non-profit donors: 11 are based out-of-state and 3 are based in Minnesota . These 14 donors gave more than $21 million to 44 Minnesota-related non-profit charities and social welfare organizations working to influence state policy in a variety of subject areas.
My review was by no means exhaustive: I did not include any donations from private individuals or for-profit corporations. There are certainly more than 14 foundations giving money to influence Minnesota public policy. These 14 happen to be the ones I chose to review.
We just finished a 2013 legislative session in which progressive political charities achieved unprecedented success in implementing their far-left agenda. Since the session ended last month, we have been busy unpacking all that was passed by the one-party-rule Democrats.
Those not paying attention now marvel at the depth and breadth of the “progress” made during the session. Bill after bill was passed and signed into law by the governor. Little, if any, of this agenda appears to reflect the middle-of-the-road, centrist consensus politics that Minnesota voters were said to crave. In a bid to end “gridlock” in this “purple” 50/50 state, we ended up—not with common-sense compromise in which the best ideas of both sides were hashed out—but with policy program better reflective of a deep-blue, 100% liberal state.
Electing one-party-rule certainly contributed to the 2013 result, but the tsunami of out-of-state cash for the non-profit groups that supply the lobbying, the legislative proposals, and the staff support played a decisive role.