MPR: Time for Reform?

Time for Reform?
by Laura McCallum
January 26, 2000

A report shows lobbyists and political action committees spent nearly $10 million to influence Minnesota politics in 1998. The study's author says most of that money is unregulated, and virtually impossible for the public to track. The report is prompting calls for restrictions on campaign spending, but party officials and special interests are already lining up to oppose any limits.

HAMLINE UNIVERSITY Professor David Schultz says special interest spending ballooned between 1994 and 1998. Lobbyist contributions to political funds increased by nearly 90-percent. The $10 million lobbyists and PACs spent in 1998 breaks down to about $33,000 per legislator to influence politics.

Read the Report
See a full copy of the report on the Hamline University Web site.

Schultz: No one is making an accusation that legislators are individually corrupt or on the take - that's not the issue. They have a tough job. The issue is the fact that they are being asked to make decisions when an incredible amount of money is being thrown at them to buy access and to influence the decision-making process.

Schultz' report documents the various ways special interests spend money on politics by giving to candidates, political parties, and caucuses, and through independent expenditures and lobbyist expenditures. He says most of the spending is funneled through groups that don't face stringent reporting requirements; the public can only trace the eight-percent of the money going directly to candidates.

Schultz: We can name lobbyist A to candidate B. The vast majority of the money - over 92-percent of the money is untracable in terms of that kind of one on one relationship.

"People are not stupid. And they're smart enough to figure out where the money's coming from and who's paying it, and if that influences your decision that a candidate or party is being supported by all this money and this particular industry, then take that to the polls and vote that way."

- Bill Walsh
Republican Strategist

Schultz also examined eight industries that spent a total of $3 million on Minnesota politics in 1998, and the biggest spenders among them were health care, insurance and gambling. But notably absent from the eight industries listed are the largest contributors to political campaigns: labor and teachers unions; prompting questions of bias. Schultz says the industries highlighted were picked by Common Cause Minnesota when he was president of the watchdog group. Special interests defend their spending as part of the political process.

Minnesota Medical Association lobbyist David Renner says political action committees are simply a way to allow groups of people with similar interests to pool their money to contribute to campaigns.

Renner: I think most PACs - at least our PAC and our activities - are not trying to figure out who we can buy, because first of all, I don't think most Minnesota legislators are buyable. But instead, we look at it based on voting records, based on what has happened, as a way to say, we know your campaigns are expensive, we know you need some assistance, here's a way for us to assist you.

Soft Money on a National Scale
Local individuals, companies and organizations are also big players on the national political scene. See the top Minnesota soft-money contributors to federal campaigns.

Some lawmakers say the explosion of special-interest money points out the need for campaign finance reform. DFL Representative Matt Entenza of St. Paul will introduce a bill this session to limit political parties' independent expenditures. But many legislators are likely to resist efforts to restrict campaign spending in the 2000 elections. Bill Walsh, who is directing House Republicans' legislative campaign efforts, says the answer isn't more regulations, it's greater disclosure.

Walsh: People are not stupid. And they're smart enough to figure out where the money's coming from and who's paying it, and if that influences your decision that a candidate or party is being supported by all this money and this particular industry, then take that to the polls and vote that way. But don't limit the money, just have full disclosure so we all know who's paying for what.

The problem, according to Schultz, is that it takes too long for the public to find out who's paying for what. His report looks at 1998 data, the most recent available, and most of the 1999 reports won't be out for a few months. Schultz and other campaign finance reform advocates predict the soft money explosion documented in his study will only increase this year, when all 201 legislative seats are at stake.

	Sign up to receive e-mail newsletters

	Audio help

	Text: Sm : Md : Lg