Minnesota's newly elected Republican National committeewoman may have already stepped off the party platform. Patricia Anderson, formerly the State Auditor and now a lobbyist, has added Canterbury Park and its racino efforts to her lobbying portfolio.
That's in spite of a party position against gambling in Minnesota. Here's the relevant section of the 2010 party platform.
We seek to eliminate all state-sponsored gambling and oppose any expansion of gambling in Minnesota. In regards to casinos already in place, current gambling laws should be changed so that Minnesota is allowed to tax profits and revenue of tribal casino gambling in the state.
Anderson registered with Canterbury via email over the weekend. She isn't officially listed on the state Campaign Finance Board website, but the board processed her filing this morning, according to staffer Patricia Waller, and Anderson confirmed she'd signed on with Canterbury.
Anderson isn't making any apologies. She points to a 2003 racino bill passed by House Republicans that gave the state auditor authority to look through casino books around the state -- a measure she says she supported. She also pointed out that more than a dozen current Republican members of the legislature (as well as now-Congressman Erik Paulsen) voted for that bill eight years ago.
Nobody should be surprised that she's a racino proponent, Anderson says. She'd been one long before she went on the party's ballot.
"I look at it from a pure free market position and a competition position," Anderson said in an interview. "We have given an unregulated, untaxed monopoly to the Indian tribes, and not one dime in Minnesota goes back to the taxpayers, and I think that's just wrong for many, many reasons, and we should be getting on board and supporting some of these other proposals."
Anderson also says she doesn't think a national committee member, or any Republican, is duty bound to support every single plank of the GOP platform.
"I think you have an obligation to generally support the party platform. Generally., Anderson said. "There are areas where Republicans themselves disagree, and I think if you asked any Republican if they support the platform 100 percent, you will not find anyone, or very few that could actually say that. So there are going to be differences, certainly if you look at the Republican activists themselves, and the delegates, and the elected Republicans, I would say at least half of them don't agree with that particular plank in the platform... You are there as a representative of the Republican Party, but you also have your own viewpoints, just like any elected official."
Party officials, though, aren't quite so sanguine about the matter.
Deputy chair Michael Brodkorb said he thought the party faithful that elected her at the state central committee meeting earlier this month would be unpleasantly surprised by her new duties. He thinks she probably would have best brought this up during her campaign for the RNC.
"She is not starting off her time as national committeewoman in a very strong way," Brodkorb said. "There is an expectation that a national committeewoman can work with people and effectively communicate, and I don't think she's done a good job in this situation. I think she's got some work to do with relationships and internal discussions on these things. But ulimately, it's a conflict."
He stopped short of saying the party would take formal action against Anderson, although he did point out that she's only serving out the last year of Evie Axdahl's term, and will be back before the party sooner, rather than later. But he suggested the situation ought to resolve itself before it came to that.
"Look, I'm not saying by any stretch of imagination that she shouldn't be able to go out and work," Brodkorb said, "but the reality is that she has taken a position and handled this in such a way that I think she's ultimately going to have to make a choice. I don't believe that she can do both."
Not sure where you get that her position is not the same as the Party Platform.
As has been discussed many times during debate on this platform and was also made clear when the Racino bill was introduced.
There is already gambling at the tracks, so this is not an expansion of gambling.
That is why the platform is worded that way - expansion of gambling.
My thoughts on this
Sorry Ms. Anderson but granting an exclusive license to ONE family is not a "free market position". Your position contradicts free-market philosophy, flies in the face of libertarianism and perpetuates a government created monopoly - and all to fund a government edifice, ala the Vikings stadium . . . shame on you.
Ted, the state would not be granting a racino license to ONE family. Last time I checked Canterbury is a public company listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol CPHC. You are free to step up and enjoy the benefits of the free market and buy their stock at anytime you'd like. Try it - you just might make a profit!
Ted, the state would not be granting a racino license to ONE family...and the funding has not been earmarked to a Vikings stadium; do you live in a closet???
Last time I checked Canterbury is a public company listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol CPHC. You are free to step up and enjoy the benefits of the free market and buy their stock at anytime you'd like. Try it - you just might make a profit which could help to get the chip off your shoulder!!!
The Racino issue is a great example of what is wrong with the politics and the influence of money. 79 percent of Minnesotans support the Racino slots program. Big money and the corruption of high ranking republicans and the buying off of most of the democrats is what is keeping the issue a no vote. The next time you complain about big money ie the oil companies, insurance companies, the phama etc, you should remember if you are against what 70 percent want then you too are part of the dishonest corrupt problem of Power and money, Tom Emmer and Tony Sutton should be investigated as to their ties with Mystic lake.