Whatever
happened to the spirit of reform and innovation in Minnesota government and
politics?
At one time this state was a leader
in reform of all types. We were once at
the forefront of government ethics and
campaign reform, a leader in education innovation, and an agent of change when
it came to health care policy among other areas. But for a generation or more the state seams
stalled, devoid of serous reform and instead caught in the grips of either
incremental, none, or a reversal of course.
Why and how it did happen?
First, think of the innovation and
progress that marked the state from the 1970s on. The state was at the center of creative ideas
for education reform. Open enrollment,
charter schools, and magnets, many of these ideas originated in Minnesota. While yes, some of these reforms have
turned out to be less successful than hoped, but they did
represent bold experiments with education.
Similarly, Minnesota was at the center with the creation of managed
health care and HMOs as ways to increase access and decrease health care costs. The state was once also a leader with
programs to extend health care to children and the poor.
Another area where the state was a
leader was in addressing fiscal imbalances across a rapidly growing
metropolitan area. We know that
nationally and in Minnesota there are huge fiscal disparities across the cities
and suburbs when it comes to funding many services, especially education, and
there are also many problems regarding unplanned growth and the siting and
placement of low income housing and the residential discrimination that comes
with that. Measures such as the Fiscal
Disparities Act and the creation of the Met Council were supposed to address these problems.
And then there is the basic area of
campaign finance, ethics, and political reform.
Yes recently the state did pass legislation expanding early voting, but
with this notable exception, serious reform
ended a generation ago.
The high point was 1994 when the Senator John
Marty pushed through a package of reforms that placed Minnesota at the
political forefront. Minnesota had a
first-in-the-nation ban on lobbyist gifts to legislators, limits on contributions
from PACs, lobbyists, and big donors, spending caps tied to participation in
public financing, a political contribution rebate system, and among the best
disclosure laws in the country for political spending, lobbyist, and legislator
conflict of interest. The state
attracted interest from across the country as a model for how to run clean
government. But then something funny
happened–reform ended.
Legislators, lobbyists, and special
interests hated the Marty reforms. They
missed the lobbyist paid-for-parties and junkets, contributors did not like the
disclosure of their activities, and legislators hated having to disclose all of
their personal financial dealings and not being able to accept gifts in return
for doing people favors. It seemed all the
politcos just did not like the idea of a
democracy where the voice of the people ruled and where public officials were
accountable to voters. So the
legislature and the governors since then have simply ignored reform.
It first started in the late 1990s
when Democrats in the Senate fought hard to repeal or modify the gift ban
law. It began with “You really can’t buy
a vote with a cup of coffee” statement and continues today with assertions that
the lack of civility and increased partisanship at the Capitol is caused by the
inability of legislators to get drunk together at lobbyist-sponsored soirees at
the Kelly Inn. It then came with
refusals to act on other reforms being enacted in other states. Proposals for
conduit fund disclosure, limits on contributions to parties and
caucuses, increased lobbyist disclosure
both in terms of dollar amounts and regarding what specific legislation
lobbyists were talking to legislators about.
The tobacco settlement and disclosure of their documents revealed a vast
circumventing of ethics laws, showing how special interest money found its way
into the private businesses and charities of legislators.
Proposals to create a non-partisan
redistricting commission were rejected, as were laws to declare it a conflict
of interest for legislators to sponsor or vote on bills that favored parties
they accepted contributions from.
Revolving door legislation to restrict
legislators from cashing in on their connections and friendships for a
year after leaving office was also defeated in 1999, despite the fact that then
Speaker Sviggum sponsored the legislation.
Later in 2005 then newly elected House member Tom Emmer introduced a
package of campaign finance and ethics reform laws that I had drafted back when
I was with Common Cause. The Senate
Democrats under Roger Moe refused to give any of the bills a hearing and in the
House Republicans and Democrats worked together to kill them. Consistently and in a bi-partisan fashion
political reform was ground to halt.
Not only has Minnesota refused to
reform but it has moved backward. At one
point Governor Pawlenty killed the political contribution rebate fund and
Republicans have consistently sought to abolish it permanently. The gift ban law has been weakened, and in
2013 in a bill pushed by then legislator and now Secretary of State Steve
Simon, campaign contributions to candidates were dramatically increased and
disclosure laws weakened. And there has
been a bipartisan defunding and weakening of the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure
Board, rendering it statutorily one of the weakest and arguably least effective
in country, despite the best intentions of its staff.
Of course, we should not forget the
fact that the House and Senate Ethics Committees are largely partisan and
ineffective and have long since lacked the will or desire to police the
behavior of their members. And we should
not forget that we have a state legislator who
is also chair of the Iron Range Resources and Recovery Board, taking a
job with a group that lobbies the legislature.
The IRRRB is also being investigated for making partisan patronage
decisions in making economic development loans.
Finally, we should not ignore, as the Pioneer Press reported, that since 2002 60 ex-legislators have
served as lobbyists or that across the state of Minnesota many local
governments do not have binding ethics laws that regulate the behavior of local
officials.
What is all of this result of this
assault on political reform? First,
Minnesota has fallen to the back of the pack when it comes to reform and ethics. The best accounting of the current sorry
state of Minnesota’s political ethics laws comes from the non-partisan and well
respected Center for Public Integrity.
In its 2009 study on legislative financial disclosure laws, Minnesota
receives an F grade, coming in 40th among the 50 states. In 1999 the same study ranked Minnesota 35th
and in 2006 39th. A steady fall. Minnesota is deficient in the range of
disclosure it asks of legislators and also in terms of them updating that
information. A second 2012 study by the
Center measured political accountability and risk of corruption in the
state. Minnesota received a D+ grade,
finishing 25th among states. Notable in
this study, Minnesota receives a D- when it comes to effective conflict of
interest laws, a D on political financing, and an F on lobbyist
disclosure. Minnesota simply stinks when
it comes to political reform.
The second result of this failure to
reform is an entrenching of special interests in state politics. Both the Republicans and Democrats have their
donors and special interests that entrench political positions, exacerbate
polarization, and make political compromise near impossible. In 2014, $64,000,000 was spent by lobbyist
principals to influence legislation at the Capitol. Combine that with political contributions to
candidates, parties, and caucuses, and independent expenditures, and in excess
of $80,000,000 or nearly $400,000 per legislator was spent in 2014 to affect
legislation or state elections. No
wonder nothing can get done at the Capitol, it is locked down by special
interest money that makes it impossible to act.
This is why Minnesota has had two shut downs in the recent past and why
it now appears possible that the state is hurling toward another.
The collapse of political ethics and
government reform in Minnesota is directly connected to its failures in
governance and why it is no longer a reformer in other areas in the way it once
was. MNSure might be a success when it
comes to the number of people who get insurance, but its rollout was a mess and
the only reason we have this reform is because of Obamacare. The old education reforms of charter schools
and open enrollment had produced new racial segregation and failed to address
the achievement gap because they were not improved upon. The Fiscal Disparities Act has been gutted
and the Met Council weakened and turned into noting more than a patronage tool
for governors and a developers. Minnesota
has a failed budget process that is again repeating itself. And it is unable to make badly needed reforms
to infrastructure funding and local government
aid.
What reform has come down to in
Minnesota is money. Republicans seem to think reform is simply cut taxes or
spending. Or in the case of education, Republicans,
along with Terri Bonoff, attack teachers' seniority or unions or otherwise
bleed schools or other institutions with the idea that less money will force
reform. Contrary wise, often Democrats
think that simply more money is the solution.
More money for education, for
example, is needed, but how that money is spent and for whom are more critical
issues.
So reform and innovation is largely
dead or un-creative. Dead because reform
got caught in a partisan crosshair and
dead because the reforms most needed--government ethics and money and politics--stalled.
