Fact-check: Emmer and the Political Contribution Refund

Posted at 1:48 PM on December 30, 2009 by Tom Scheck (11 Comments)
Filed under: Campaign 2010, Campaign 2010: Minnesota Governor

GOP Rep. Tom Emmer sent out an e-mail to supporters recently asking for an end of year contribution to his campaign for governor. In it, he also wrote that he has been opposed to raising money through the Political Contribution Refund (PCR). Before the program ended in July, Minnesotans who donated to a candidate for state office were eligible to receive a tax refund of up to $50 for individuals and $100 for couples. Emmer criticized the practice in his e-mail to supporters:

When I filed for the governor's race, I made the decision not to participate in the contribution refund program. While other politicians were scrambling to collect taxpayer money for their campaigns before the program ended, I refused. I will not run a campaign funded by your hard-earned tax dollars. As governor, I will demand that state agencies operate with less of your money, so why not lead by example and start now? Although this position affected our fundraising numbers, I believe it was the right decision. I know it's not about winning the next election or advancing my political career, it's about sticking to my principles. You don't just show up, you have to stand up for what is right.

It's true that Emmer won't run a campaign for governor with funds from the PCR, but not entirely because he's taking a stand against it.

In July, Gov. Pawlenty eliminated funding for the PCR when he cut spending to balance the budget. Pawlenty announced his unallotment plan in June, several weeks before Emmer filed paperwork to run for governor. (Update: Emmer's team correctly points out that he can start raising money up to two weeks before he files paperwork)

Emmer's opposition to the PCR may be a recent phenomenon. Campaign Finance reports show that Emmer's supporters earmarked $12,209 in tax refunds for his campaign for State Representative since 2004.

2009 - Info not available
2008 - $2,790
2007 - $2,150
2006 - $1,000
2005 - $883
2004 - $5,386

What makes this interesting is that Emmer had to agree to qualify for the refund. The Department of Revenue said only candidates who "signed an agreement with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (formerly Minnesota Ethical Practices Board) to observe state campaign spending limits qualify for the refund."

Several folks have pointed out Emmer's relationship to the PCR, but it was first raised by Koochiching GOP Chair Terry Stone. Stone, who said he's backing Marty Seifert for governor, said he's "offended" by Emmer's claim.

"It's so blatantly groundless. The whole idea that he is ethically or morally opposed to running a campaign with taxpayer subsidy is flatly not correct."

Stone also said Republican activists in his district or elsewhere are "in no mood for politics as usual" and want straightforward statements from all of the Republican candidates.

Comments (11)

Why didn't you put Seifert's PCR numbers in this article? Marty far outraised Tom in PCR money.

1996 Seifert: $9,116
1997 Seifert: 6,085
1998 Seifert: 9,013
1999 Seifert: 5,689
2000 Seifert: 16,054
2001 Seifert: 4,830
2002 Seifert: 2,314
2003 Seifert: 275
2004 Seifert: 13,916 Emmer: $5,386
2005 Seifert: 10,250 Emmer: 883
2006 Seifert: 18,952 Emmer: 1,000
2007 Seifert: 15,563 Emmer: 2,150
2008 Seifert: 20,684 Emmer: 2,790
Total Seifert: $132,741 Emmer: $12,209
2004-8 Total Seifert: $79,365 Emmer: $12,209

Posted by Benjamin Kruse | December 30, 2009 2:26 PM

Benjamin - it's the hypocrisy from Emmer. He was for it before he was against it, a la John F Kerry.

Emmer has a track record of this stuff - take a look at his vote to deny hennpein county taxpayers a referendum on the twins stadium or his vote against tort reform.

In my opinion, this isn't principled - it's more of the same from another politician.

Posted by Tommy Johns | December 30, 2009 2:45 PM

@Benjamin Kruse:
How is Seifert's money-raising relevant to an item about Emmer's hypocrisy on the PCR? Did Seifert make a similar hypocritical statement? That's nothing more than a red herring. Emmer's convenient flip-flop isn't excused by the acts of another politician.

Posted by Patrick Oden | December 30, 2009 2:50 PM

Maybe because Seifert didn't attack PCR?
But thanks for reminding us that Emmer has never been able to raise money, PCR or otherwise.

Posted by Observer | December 30, 2009 2:51 PM

Pat Anderson is clean as a whistle on this one. Pat Anderson for governor!

Posted by Bill | December 30, 2009 3:01 PM

Mr Kruse -

Mr Kruse -

Your point is well taken. Emmer has shown that even with a state subsidy (that he's more than willing to use) and wealthy Republican district he is either too lazy or unable to raise money.

I think if people dig a little deeper they will find that Rep Emmer is not the principled leader he poses to be and this is a great example.

Next thing you know we'll hear that trial lawyer Emmer is a big fan of tort reform

Posted by Kim | December 30, 2009 3:10 PM

One other question: if Emmer transfers money from his state house account to his governor account, wouldn't that be PCR money that he is principally opposed to in this race? It will be very interesting to see his finance report. Maybe he'll release his report Jan. 1 so we can all see how principled he is.

Posted by kim | December 30, 2009 3:54 PM

@bill

Pat took PCR money in 2002 - http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/campfin/Refunds/02Refund_Cand.pdf

2006 - http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/campfin/Refunds/06Refund_Cand.pdf

Nice try.

Posted by kim | December 30, 2009 4:33 PM

Don't celebrate too quick, Bill, Pat Anderson couldn't raise enough capital to compete for the Governor's mansion if her life depended on it.

I also believe this is the beginning of the end for Tom Emmer. A huge gaffe on his part in admitting he would be in favor of some types of publicly held money going towards new stadiums was just the beginning last week, but now Tom has denounced a program he has and will continue to benefit from for as long as he is in the race! I was on the fence with this race. No more.

Posted by Brian P | December 30, 2009 6:40 PM

Leslie Davis for Governor, the little campaign that could. Man alive, I am soooooooo excited.
Hey Norm whatcha got, come on in it's getting hot.

Posted by Leslie Davis | December 30, 2009 8:49 PM

Working on Pat Anderson’s campaign, I am as partisan as it gets in this debate. But as I noted in various forums commenting about Margaret Kelliher’s campaign finance woes, the rule she broke was an unnecessary and I would argue unconstitutional restriction on the free speech of people who wanted to support her. The PCR is another example of government extra-constitutional activity putting people in morally compromising positions.

I have long advocated in GOP meetings and forums that Republicans, on principle, should refuse PCR money (doing away with PCR is in the GOP Platform). The contrary argument was always the pragmatic one; Republican candidates would simply be uncompetitive if they refused to participate in PCR and their opponents took the state money. As one can question MAK’s character for skirting campaign finance rules, one can question the character of Republican candidates who take or took PCR contributions, but let’s not overlook the basic problem – government putting people in situations where they are required to make to make self-defeating moral decisions. No government of a free people should have that power.

I was elated when Gov. Pawlenty unallotted the PCR fund. However, it still remains in statute. The funding can be reallotted at any time. Putting my partisan hat back on, I would note that Pat Anderson is the only candidate to unequivocally state “the statutory apparatus supporting PCR should be repealed.”

In Number 24 of her series “365 days, 365 Ways to a Better Minnesota” (http://anderson4governor.com/2009/11/25/356-days-365-ways-to-a-better-minnesota-24-eliminate-the-political-contribution-campaign-fund/) Pat notes:

“Government funding of political campaigns is an expansion of the scope of government that infringes on political free speech and introduces an element of political chicanery into elections that has nothing to do with the fitness of a candidate for office or his or her policy positions….Whether or not to participate in the PCR program becomes a strategic political decision for candidates. It diverts candidates from making their cases to the people of Minnesota on policies and issues to trying to outguess the spending strategies of their opponents. Instead of achieving the objective of taking money out politics, the PCR adds yet another complication to political fund raising….The only way to take the money out of politics is to limit the scope of government.”

In the political sniping, let’s not ignore the root cause of the problem: Government has too much influence over the lives and activities of Minnesotans. Case in point – government should no more finance private campaigns than it should fund private stadiums, private businesses or favored industries. Waving my partisan hat, Pat Anderson is the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, that is consistently making this argument. (http://anderson4gov.com)

Posted by Craig Westover | December 31, 2009 9:57 AM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories