The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a non-profit organization that brings corporations together with state lawmakers to create and advocate for model legislation. Minnesota experts on lobbyist disclosure say ALEC’s activity here requires the group to register as a lobbyist under state law.

ALEC denies that the organization lobbies state legislators.

“We’re not lobbyists because we don’t lobby, none of our staff are registered lobbyists,” ALEC spokesperson Raegan Weber told the Minnesota Independent Wednesday. “We take a policy position. Just as most Americans have an opinion on policy, so do we, but we do not do a call to action, according to the IRS there has to be a call to action.”

Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the open-government group Public Citizen, agreed that the federal lobbying disclosure requirements likely don’t apply to ALEC because the main focus of the organization is on state lawmakers.

But Holman said that state lobbying disclosure laws — including Minnesota’s, which are some of the toughest — do apply.

“A model law falls under an exemption, under nearly all lobby laws, as being just an educational guideline that’s widely distributed,” Holman said. “If it stopped there it wouldn’t pass the threshold, but the fact that ALEC then exercises and then does these direct activities to meet with lawmakers in Minnesota and to proselytize this model law and then help them draft it into actual state legislation, that crosses the line.”

Two Minnesota lawmakers attended a recent ALEC convention in New Orleans. Other members of the state legislature participated in a meeting in St. Paul with ALEC staff on March 4, 2011, where staff presented ALEC policy “recommendations.” Both events are examples of the sort of activity that helps ALEC cross the threshold of the state’s definition of lobbyists.

Under the state’s definition of a lobbyist, ALEC clearly qualifies, Holman said, and “should register and disclose their penalties and activities in Minnesota.”

Hamline University School of Business professor David Schultz agreed with Holman’s assessment.

“There have been, over the years, several groups that have operated nationally that operate in the state of Minnesota, and they somehow think they don’t have to comply with state law when it comes to trying to affect state elections or lobbying the state legislature. They consistently get this wrong,” Schultz told the Minnesota Independent Wednesday. “They’re not breaking any federal laws but they still have to conform with state law and state registration laws.”

In Minnesota, ALEC’s private sector chair is Comcast lobbyist John Gibbs, according to records from the Center for Media and Democracy and the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. Weber said that lobbyists who are also corporate members, or in Gibbs’ case, a private sector chair of the organization, don’t represent ALEC, and that it’s only the ALEC members’ responsibility to register as lobbyists.

Both Schultz and Holman said the law doesn’t see ALEC and private sector lobbyists who are members as unrelated entities.

“Any lobbyist that works with an association, and that association also crosses that threshold for lobbying activity, they’re all required to report and disclose what they’re spending,” Holman said. “I fully expect Minnesota’s lobby law would capture all this [activity].”

On the federal level, Common Cause, an open government advocacy group, wrote a letter last month suggesting that the IRS audit ALEC to see if the group has violated its tax-exempt status by lobbying.

But most states don’t closely police who registers as a lobbyist, partly to avoid chilling the public’s constitutional right to lobby their elected representatives. States instead hope that professional lobbyists will voluntarily register to disclose their spending, Holman said.

“You hope these lobbyists have the integrity to disclose where their money is coming from and how they’re spending it. I’m sure Minnesota is just expecting that to happen, which is why they’re not proactively enforcing the law against ALEC,” Holman said. “Now that ALEC has become such a major public controversy, I think the Minnesota state agency is obligated to be a little more proactive on this.”

On March 4, 2011, ALEC hosted an educational event in Bandana Square in St. Paul. In attendance were state lawmakers including ALEC state chair Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake) and an ALEC task force director, who traveled there for the meeting.

The event likely violated guidelines set in a 1995 opinion (below) offered by the Ethical Practices Board, now the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board. Under the ruling, which was brought on by a similar event organized by the group at that time, ALEC was directed to register a lobbyist with Minnesota if “the issues forum and any written materials distributed include information that communicates with or urges others to communicate with officials in attempts to advocate a particular position to an official about legislative or administrative action.”

ALEC spokesperson Raegan Weber told the Minnesota Independent that ALEC wasn’t aware of the requirement in the board’s 1995 decision. She denied the group engaged in lobbying.

“Our task force director was asked to give an educational seminar about the publication,” Weber said. “That’s what it was — it was an educational seminar.”

Weber said the purpose of the March event was to provide information on ALEC’s State Government Reform Toolkit, which includes what the group’s press release described as 20 “recommendations” to state lawmakers dealing with fiscal crises. The guide argues for legislative reforms in areas ranging from pensions to the establishment of a privatization and efficiency council. Many of the recommendations include citations to ALEC model legislation, which is sometimes written and introduced to the group by corporate ALEC members who pay between $7,000 and $25,000 to be involved in ALEC.

Hamline University School of Business professor David Schultz told the Minnesota Independent that the board’s decision likely was applied to ALEC’s forums because of the group’s unique organizational structure.

“Oftentimes, a lot of organizations, if they’re going to sponsor issue forums, don’t have to [register a lobbyist],” Schultz said. “Because the legislative exchange council is seeking to try to influence legislation and legislators, that’s why the issue forums would require them to be registered.”

Schultz weighed in on the possible outcomes of ALEC not registering a lobbyist with the state: “It looks like any event they’re going to be sponsoring in the future is going to require them to continue to  be considered a lobbyist.” He added, “It could affect issues like their tax status.”

Opinions from the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board are interpretations of Minnesota statutes, in this case the one governing the state’s lobbyist disclosure requirements. Board investigations of statutory violations are generally triggered by public complaints. If a violation of statute is found by the board, it could lead to a civil penalty.

ALEC counts some 2,000 legislative officials nationwide among its members. In Minnesota, that includes about 30 members — all Republicans, according to state chair Kiffmeyer – in the state House and Senate and at least one federal member, Rep. Erik Paulsen. The group has drawn criticism from some who say it allows corporations to lobby lawmakers and write legislation without disclosure.

Common Cause Minnesota connected the group to legislation recently introduced in Minnesota, including bills that would undermine greenhouse gas restrictions and shield large food companies from consumer lawsuits.

ALEC is sometimes viewed as secretive because it doesn’t disclose its membership, although leaked ALEC files and individual confirmations by the Minnesota Independent have provided a partial picture of some Minnesota lawmakers that are involved.

Are you a member of the legislature or legislative staff with knowledge of ALEC’s work in Minnesota? Send us an email: jcollins@minnesotaindependent.com.

Campaign Finance Decision

Last week’s House Judiciary Policy and Finance hearing on a bill that would ban taxpayer funding for abortion erupted into anger when Republican Rep. Tony Cornish of Good Thunder called a poem read by a United Church of Christ pastor “disgusting,” a term he also used for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Rev. T. Michael Rock of Robbinsdale United Church of Christ read a poem called “No Small Thing,” which relayed the perspectives of a fetus, a woman and God in the difficult choice about whether to terminate a pregnancy. The poem spoke of a sac of limbs, referring to the fetus and the amniotic sac.

Rep. Tony Cornish (R)

“I’ve got to count to ten before I give my comment,” Cornish angrily told the committee. To Rev. Rock, he said, “I find your testimony particularly disgusting, to invoke the Lord’s word in support of abortion. That bag of limbs and bones you describe could be found outside an abortion clinic, sucked out of a mother’s womb.”

Minnesota ACLU head Chuck Samuelson testified before Rev. Rock spoke, stating that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that it is unconstitutional to deny women abortion services if the state also provides pregnancy services.

Cornish didn’t like that testimony either: “And I find the ACLU just about as disgusting. You attack peoples’ liberties more than you defend them in the cases I’ve seen this year.”

He added, “It’s unbelievable about invoking the Lord’s word. I wouldn’t do that in opposition to abortion, to bring the Lord’s word into this. Ew.”

But Cornish has come close. During the debate last year on whether to override Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s veto of cuts to health insurance for low-income Minnesotans, the DFL used religious arguments to defend the poor.

To that, Cornish said, “It gives me a tough feeling when you and your members mention God in the debate here and then trot out your Bible whenever it’s convenient. I urge you to trot that Bible out again when we talk about abortion. I urge you to trot that Bible out again when we talk about gay rights and what Christians feel about that, some Christians. Don’t do it just when it’s convenient and try to make us feel guilty.”

Hamline Prof. David Schultz said that Cornish’s words are par for the course in today’s political environment.

“We are at a point where each side demonizes the other, accusing its opponent as evil, calculating, as some type of low-life,” he wrote. “We make the other party or other side the enemy, and the purpose of doing that is to motivate the base. Make the battle one of good versus evil.”

He added, “This is what Tony Cornish did. The abortion hearing was televised and supporters of his position were in the audience. It was good copy to call names and demonize the opponents. I bet he runs the tape on You-Tube and for his next election. Again, it was a Jerry Springer moment.”

A provision in the House Omnibus Education Finance bill released by Republican leadership on Monday could run afoul of the state constitution: School vouchers. Minnesota’s constitutional ban on taxpayer funding for religious schools, which stems back to anti-Catholic sentiment in the late 1800s, could create legal problems for the bill, as other states have found.

HF934 contains numerous proposals for education funding in the 2012-2013 fiscal cycle, including the initiation of a controversial school voucher program. Over the course of four years, the authors propose to divert $53 million away from public schools into private — mainly religious — school coffers. Parents would choose the school, the state would cut a check and send it to the school, and the parent would arrive at the school to endorse the check.

Minnesota already has a tax credit system for low-income families which sets $1,625 per family for each student in kindergarten through grade 6 and $2,500 per family for each student in grades 7 through 12.

In several states where vouchers have been attempted, they’ve been ruled unconstitutional because they violate the separation of church and state and clauses that mandate uniform access to education. Though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled vouchers constitutional, state laws are many times more strict.

David Schultz, a politics and law professor at Hamline University, said that Minnesota law is different from federal law.

“The federal courts have ruled on vouchers and aid to religious schools on several occasions,” Schultz told the Minnesota Independent. “They use what is called the Lemon test to decide if the aid constitutes an establishment of religion. In general, some aid to these schools is okay for non-religious items.”

He continued, “However, Minnesota is potentially different. There is the clear constitutional clause that does not exist at the federal level. This suggests a potentially different outcome that might prohibit the type of funding as proposed in this bill.”

Article XIII, Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution states:

“Prohibition as to aiding sectarian school. In no case shall any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught.”

“Second, Minnesota has a tradition in many cases of interpreting its constitution more strictly than the federal constitution,” Schultz said. “This is definitely the case with the free exercise or religious freedom clause of the state constitution. Whether the same would be true [with this issue] is an open question.”

He concluded, “There are clear concerns that this finance bill could raise constitutional questions.”

Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, agreed that there are constitutional issues with such a system.

“If you want state money, you are a state school,” he said. Schools that accept vouchers may be saddled with state laws that mandate that topics be taught a certain way or laws that might impinge on the school’s religious nature.

He also questioned the wisdom of pulling money from the public school system for the program. “What has been the result of the charter school experiment?” he asked. “Has anything been learned that would make public schools more successful?”

Minnesota spent $64 million on charter schools in 2008 alone, so instead of pulling more money away from public schools, Samuelson argues, why not look to lessons learned from that program to improve the existing system?

“Is this a solution designed to create an English-style system, a two-tiered system with schools for the haves and schools for the have-nots?” added Samuelson.

That was a problem for Florida’s voucher proponents who lost in the courts because the state constitution mandated a uniform public school system. Allowing certain students to attend private schools with public money violated that state’s constitution.

But Samuelson said it could be a part of a different movement, one that wants to do away with Blaine Amendments, such as Minnesota’s ban on taxpayer funding for schools.

Ira “Chip” Lupu, of the George Washington University Law School, explains:

Funding of religion was such a contentious issue because of the increase in Catholic immigration in the mid-to-late 1800s. Public schools at this time led students in reciting Protestant but not Catholic prayers and reading from the Protestant but not the Catholic version of the Bible. As more and more Catholics immigrated to the United States, Catholic Americans began to resent sending their children to schools that were effectively Protestant. So they decided to start their own schools, where Catholic children could recite their own prayers and read from their own version of the Bible. The creation of these schools made many Protestants worry about whether the government would start funding Catholic schools. The Blaine Amendments arose from this concern about the “Catholicization” of American education.

Minnesota has such a law, as does Arizona where courts ruled that school vouchers violated that law.

The leading proponent of the amendments was Republican Sen. James G. Blaine of Maine, though historians have disputed whether or how much anti-Catholic sentiment was involved in the amendments. Blaine, Minn., a suburb northwest of St. Paul, bears the name of the former senator.

A broad discussion of the Blaine Amendment debate can be read in the the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ publication “School Choice and the Blaine Amendments (PDF).

During testimony on the bill in the House Education Finance Committee Monday evening, it became clear that some advocates of school vouchers — supporters call it “school choice” — had issues with the program.

Peter Knoll, education director of Minnesota Catholic Conference, said his group supports the bill, but with caveats.

“We wish to reiterate out support for enrollment options,” he said. “The reservations we have has to do with the mandates that are embedded in the section regarding enrollment options. We think a better solution is to require schools to be accredited” through a state recognized group for participating schools.

Among the mandates included are anti-harassment rules, educational standards and testing and a prohibition on denying qualified students.

Dr. Karen Effrem of Education Liberty Watch — formerly called EdWatch — said that the “school choice” provisions are great so long as the mandates are lifted.

“With regard to school choice, we again appreciate the intent of the bill. We do want the mandates off, or move to a purely tax credit form of school choice bill such as Sen. Senjem’s in the Senate.”

Republican Sen. David Senjem of Rochester offered a bill that would provide significant tax credit to those who donate to nonprofits whose specific purpose is to provide scholarships for parents who are seeking school choice.

And the Senjem bill may get around significant constitutional barriers that the omnibus bill may face.

Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty has spent the past few weeks trying to curry favor with a slew of conservative religious figures, some so extreme they’ve been labeled “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He’s gone public about his plan to reinstate of the military’s ban on openly gay and lesbian servicemembers if elected president and claimed that America was founded “under God.” While Pawlenty has always been a social conservative, he hasn’t worn it on his sleeve this prominently. But will these new friends help or hamper his likely 2012 bid for president?

This week Pawlenty kicked off a series  of presidential forums in Iowa with The Family Leader, a controversial conservative group that calls homosexuality a “public health crisis” and teaches “gay sex kills.” He also appeared on the radio show of Focus on the Family to talk about the Christian founding of America.

But perhaps the biggest turn to the right came in January when Pawlenty appeared on the radio show of Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (AFA). Fischer is known for making incendiary comments that have landed his group on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s anti-gay hate groups list.

In the past week, Fischer has courted controversy: On Saturday he appeared on the radio show of Bradlee Dean of You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International ministries to say that “homosexuals” were responsible — at least indirectly — for the Holocaust. And on Tuesday, Fischer said that “many of the tribal reservations today remain mired in poverty and alcoholism” because Native Americans refuse to embrace Christianity.

To Kyle Mantyla, senior fellow at People for the American Way, it’s disappointing that Pawlenty is giving Fischer legitimacy, but it’s also not surprising.

“I’d like to say that it is remarkable that someone who is planning on running for president would agree to associate with the likes of Fischer, but the fact of the matter is that Fischer is a perfectly ‘respectable’ leader within the conservative, religious right movement,” he told the Minnesota Independent. “What would truly be remarkable is if someone like Pawlenty actually had the decency and courage to stand up to Fischer and refuse to tolerate and legitimize his unrelenting bigotry.”

Mantyla has been following Fischer’s career and his controversial remarks at Right Wing Watch for several years.

“Sadly, Fischer’s open bigotry against gays and Muslims is common within the religious right and perfectly acceptable to the conservative movement as a whole,” he said. “As such, Fischer is a regular participant at religious right events where he is often given a prominent speaking slot from which to spread his views, and Republican members of Congress regularly appear on his radio program.”

Though Pawlenty continues to court those whose views many find offensive, one of his challengers doubts he will go far enough to succeed. Rick Santorum told columnist George Will last week that he “doubts that Pawlenty has the passion requisite for connecting with values voters.”

For the Minnesota Republican, it’s a double-edged sword. He needs strong support from the religious right — including those who hold views many find offensive — in order to break out of the pack to win the GOP nomination. But, if he goes too far, it could turn off the moderate voters he’ll need to woo in a general election.

Hamline University political scientist David Schultz said Pawlenty “definitely has to start drifting to the right.”

“Where the real momentum is in the Republican Party is on the right,” he said in an interview with the Minnesota Independent. “The party is being pulled by the conservative tea party wing; they are really driving it, especially in Iowa.”

Schultz mentioned a recent graph created by Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight which showed Pawlenty dead center among all the presidential candidates in terms of conservatism and party insider status, not a good place for a candidate who wants to stand out. Contrast that with Rep. Michele Bachmann, a fellow Minnesotan rumored to be running in 2012. She sits on the far right side of the conservative spectrum and has hooked herself into the tea party movement.

“Pawlenty has to go to the right to find a narrative. He’s forced to, I think. He is a Reagan Republican in a party that has rebranded itself in a Palin-Bachmann-tea party manner, and he’s trying to rebrand himself to be part of the new wave when, in fact, he’s not a part of it.”

Bachmann, he said, faces a different problem in that her far right views might make her extremely popular with the base but not with a general election voter: “If somebody like Bachmann nails the nomination, how does she then turn on a dime?”

And that’s a problem Pawlenty could face as well if he tracks toward the extreme right in order to shore up a lackluster campaign, but can’t pivot in the general election.

In 1964, Republican Barry Goldwater lost in a landslide to Lyndon B. Johnson mainly because the Democrats were successful in branding him a right-winger. Schultz says the 2012 election could shape up the same way if the GOP continues to lean right and President Barack Obama gains centrist credibility.

“Obama has reinvented himself as a centrist,” Schultz said, adding that the GOP could fracture during the nomination battle. “One question is: Does Bachmann run as an independent if she doesn’t get the nomination?”

Obama is no stranger to controversy surrounding religious associates. His former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, became a campaign issue in 2008 when some saw his sermons to be extreme. Obama had to distance himself from Wright. Will Pawlenty need to do the same?

Perhaps, but so far he doesn’t seem to be. Pawlenty has defended Fischer and other SPLC-dubbed “hate groups,” and in Iowa earlier this week, he was asked by reporters about the designation of several religious right groups as “hate groups.”

“I certainly disagree with the notion that the… Family Research Council is a hate group,” Pawlenty said at a Feb. 7 Iowa City press conference with The Family Leader’s Bob VanderPlaats. “I think the Southern Poverty Law Center is out of line for coming to that conclusion.”

And late last year, Pawlenty signed an open letter saying that the SPLC was attacking groups “that uphold Judeo-Christian moral views, including marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”

His letter did not address the claims that the SPLC made in designating those organizations as hate groups — that they intentionally spread falsehoods about Muslims, LGBT people, Native Americans and other Americans.

Lynda Waddington of the Iowa Independent contributed to this report.

As a state legislator, Tom Emmer has been vocal about divisive social issues — he led the charge to amend the constitution to bar gay marriage, tried to prevent same-sex couples from using surrogate mothers, and called an AIDS outreach program to gay men “disgusting discourse” — but now that he’s running for governor, he’s fallen virtually silent on such topics, even when asked about them on religious-right radio. While Emmer’s tack may be related to his campaign’s focus on the economy over other considerations, one thing seems apparent: He’s also steering clear of divisive topics in a bid to reach moderate voters.

But Emmer’s refusal to discuss social issues hasn’t dimmed conservatives’ enthusiasm for his candidacy. For example, despite Emmer dodging the gay-marriage question on his radio program, Pastor Brad Brandon endorsed him anyway. Meanwhile, the Minnesota Family Council and National Organization for Marriage continue to spend big money on ads supporting his candidacy while touting the very positions that he won’t acknowledge on the campaign trail.

Brandon asked Emmer where he stood on abortion and gay marriage during a radio interview last week.

“My campaign has been entirely focused on the economy and jobs, but there’s no question, I have a record on my position on these issues in my six years in the legislature. People know exactly what that is,” Emmer said.

On gay marriage, Emmer said, “That issue, when it comes to marriage, the governor will not… That’ll be something the legislature would pass and would go right to the ballot. So, you know, we will have to see what happens in the next legislature.”

He continued, “But you know Brad, I have said from day one, the next governor has to be invested in creating new jobs and opportunities in the state of Minnesota. Those issues, they’ll be taken care of by someone outside the governor’s office. You know my position.”

Emmer’s frequent dodging of such questions hasn’t gone unnoticed. Minnesota Daily columnist Michael Rietmulder took a swipe at the Delano Republican on Monday, following a weekend debate at the University of Minnesota where the moderator tried in vain to get Emmer to answer questions about abortion and gay marriage.

“Each time moderator Kathryn Pearson, a political science professor at the University, pressed Emmer to articulate his position on social issues, Emmer started bobbing and weaving like Sugar Ray Leonard,” he wrote. “Rather than openly answer honest questions, he reverted back to familiar talking points about jobs.”

It wasn’t only the University of Minnesota debate where Emmer sidestepped questions on social issues. TheUpTake put together a compilation video of Emmer’s non-answers to questions posed at debates. Like his appearance on Brandon’s show, he switched the subject each time he was asked to stake a position.

[Story continues after video]

In all of these instances, DLF gubernatorial candidate Mark Dayton and the Independence Party’s Tom Horner gave at least partial answers in response to questions about abortion or gay marriage.

Hamline University political scientist David Schultz says that these responses are part of each campaign’s strategy.

“The economy is only part of the issue for why the three candidates have taken the postures they have,” he said. “This silence by Emmer and comments by Dayton and Horner are all about how the different candidates are playing to their political bases and swing voters.”

Emmer’s time in the Minnesota Legislature involved opposing any advances for same-sex couples and favoring restrictions on abortion, which Schultz said has given him a lot of credibility with his base.

“Emmer cannot alienate them but he also needs to attract moderates,” he said. “Emmer’s base is smaller than Dayton’s, which is pro-choice and pro-gay rights. The same is true with Horner. If Emmer cannot attract some moderates on top of his base, he probably cannot win.”

The lion’s share of those moderates favor gay rights and are pro-choice. “If he downplays his social issues he hopes to attract both the economic conservatives and the moderates he is fighting to capture from Horner and Dayton. Horner and Dayton have more socially liberal bases and will discuss the issues to engage them. They know most of the moderates are pro-choice and pro-gay rights and thus are willing to discuss the topics.”

Dayton and Horner also have a challenge in that strategy. “But again, they do not want to emphasize [those issues] so they do not excite Emmer’s base too much,” he said. “Remember how in 2004 anti-gay ballot propositions drove social conservatives to vote? Dayton and Horner want to prevent this from occurring to the benefit of Emmer.”

So far Emmer is holding the support of his base and has successfully avoided having to address his positions on same-sex marriage and abortion in public forums — and he hasn’t really had to. Anti-gay rights and anti-abortion groups are doing the work for him.

The Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) have picked up the slack on the gay marriage issue with ads that tell voters where he stands on the issue without Emmer himself having to say anything. So far the groups have bankrolled two television ads, a series of radio ads and even a poll in support of Emmer on the issue of gay marriage.

And the Catholic Church in Minnesota has given Emmer — who is Catholic — an assist in the form of 400,000 DVDs it mailed to state Catholics. Those DVDs are produced by the Knights of Columbus, which, coincidentally, is a huge funder of NOM.

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life has spent considerable time attacking Horner on the issue of abortion. Horner has staked out a moderate position on the issue, saying he wants to reduce abortion through education, but MCCL calls him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

On its PAC website, the group writes, “Tom Horner casts himself as a commonsense conservative but the truth is much different. He is much closer to an Arne Carlson style RINO (Republican in name only).”

Dayton supports the status quo on abortion, and both Horner and Dayton support expanding rights for LGBT people including same-sex marriage.

Emmer’s positions as a legislator, however, are in sharp contrast.

Emmer authored a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as well as civil unions and domestic partnerships. He proposed an amendment to ban same-sex couples from using a surrogate mother and voted to deny municipal governments from offering domestic partnerships. He also voted against: a bipartisan anti-bullying bill because it contained LGBT protections for students; health care benefits for same-sex partners of state employees; comprehensive sex education; and the Final Wishes act, which would let same-sex couples make decisions concerning the remains of a deceased partner.

He led a campaign in 2005 against the Minnesota AIDS Project’s HIV prevention outreach to gay men calling it “disgusting discourse” and tried to strip the agency of its funding.

Emmer has proposed increased to the controversial Positive Alternatives program which provides dubious information to women who are considering abortion, and sponsored a bill that would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control pills based on their religious beliefs. Emmer also supports banning public funds for abortion.

Photo: Jim Meffert for Congress

While most eyes are focused on Minnesota’s 6th Congressional District and the spectacle that is already Rep. Michele Bachmann vs. Sen. Tarryl Clark, some political watchers see a potential battle in Minnesota’s 3rd Congressional District between freshmen Republican Rep. Erik Paulsen and his DFL challenger Jim Meffert. Though some say it’s a long shot, others think the DFL would do well to invest resources there in support of Meffert.

The New York Times’ political prediction maker Nate Silver has Paulsen the likely favorite, predicting he will finish the race comfortably with 62 percent and Meffert at 35 percent, and the Cook Political Report doesntt see it as a competitive race. It’s not even on their radar.

But the popular election tracking website Electoral-Vote.com rates the race as a pure tossup. According to the site’s author, Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Paulsen should be vulnerable even in a good year for Republicans.

Freshman Erik Paulsen won this exactly evenly split district [between Democrats and Republicans] with only 48% of the vote in a three-way race in 2008. There is some evidence that the Independence Party candidate hurt the Democrat more than he hurt Paulsen. Furthermore, Obama carried the district with 52% of the vote. All in all, Paulsen will definitely be on the Democrats’ radar in 2010. Their candidate is Jim Meffert, the executive director of the Minnsota Optometric Association, who has never run for public office before. He is clearly not as strong a candidate as the Democrats would have liked, but in an evenly split district he has a shot at it.

And Hamline University professor David Schultz, says the DFL should pull resources from trying to defeat Bachmann and lend them to Meffert.

“Since election, Paulsen has spoken moderate but voted right,” Schultz wrote on his blog. “He has a voting record nearly identical to Bachmann’s voting with her over 90% of the time. He has no real accomplishments to show, and about the only news about him has been how he appeared to gouge the House franking privilege by sending out hundreds of thousands of dollars in mail to his constituents, at taxpayer expense.”

The district, he said, is more moderate than Paulsen.

Too many people have heard me argue that campaigns are won or lost based on how well you capture the swing voter. The most critical swing voter in Minnesota remains the suburban mom with kids – the soccer mom. These women are less and less likely to vote GOP because of its agenda. These women are worried about family issues–early childhood ed, K-12, jobs, and health care for their children. Minnesota’s third district is soccer mom heaven. It is heavily dominated by soccer moms in the suburbs, and they are ready to swing.
Some analysis and polls suggest Paulsen’s agenda is way out of line with voters here. Less than half have a favorable view of him, with many outright unwilling to vote for him again were there a choice. This is where Jim Meffert comes in.

Schultz says Meffert fits the district but does not get the attention needed to be competitive.

Jim Meffert is a terrific candidate for the third district, if only he could get the attention of the media, Democrats, and the voters. He is a St. Olaf grad, serving there as the president of the college Republicans. He became a Democrat because, like the soccer moms of his district, he saw the GOP moving in a direction he did not like. Jim has worked with the PTA and on education issues, he comes from peace and justice wing of the religious community, and he talks of government and business working together to solve problems. All of these are perfect themes for this district.

Tom Emmer rollerblades at a recent campaign event. Photo: Emmer for Governor, Facebook

This morning, Minnesota Republican candidate for governor Tom Emmer was the subject of a posting by New York–based Gawker titled, “Meet Tom Emmer, Target’s Favorite Right-Wing Nutjob.”

Former Speaker Dee Long predicts it’ll be “tough,” while political scientist David Schultz calls the managing of twin responsibilities “risky.” But Kelliher says she’s looking forward to playing those roles over the next few months.

“There are both positives and negatives to being in that position,” Long tells the Minnesota Independent. ”She has more of a platform [as a candidate] than she would otherwise have, because she is the Speaker.”

On the other hand, says Long, the leadership job is “a lot of responsibility [and] a tough role.”

The main rub: “not having sufficient opportunity to contact delegates. …  If you don’t call people and ask for their vote, that’s a major impact on a candidacy.”

But Kelliher says she can reach delegates on evenings and weekends, adding that the perception of a legislature that runs overtime every night is out of date, with only three late-night sessions last year.

More than that, Kelliher applies her aim to “stay focused on what’s best for Minnesota” to both her Speaker job and her gubernatorial candidacy. “Those things are linked,” she says.

Long says Kelliher, whom she supports for governor, is conscientious enough to handle both tasks. The two have numerous ties. Long was the first woman to serve as Speaker of the Minnesota House, in 1992–93; Kelliher is the second, serving since 2007. Kelliher succeeded Long in 1999 as representative of Minneapolis’ District 60A. Long had her own competing responsibilities in 1998, her last year in office, when as chair of the House tax committee she sought (unsuccessfully) the DFL endorsement for secretary of state.

All in

Kelliher is betting it all on her bid to replace retiring Republican Tim Pawlenty in the governor’s mansion next year, pledging not to run for re-election to her House seat and to abide by the DFL endorsement.

“She has the most to win and the most to lose,” says Schultz, who teaches law and political science at Hamline University. Kelliher’s candidacy would be boosted by legislative success, but that’s no easy trick. Schultz sees success for Kelliher as getting a bonding bill that’s bigger than Gov. Pawlenty proposed and resolving the state budget deficit without cutting education or health care further — all in good time and without a bloody battle. Gridlock, much easier to come by, hurts her chances.

A problem, in Long’s view: The DFL endorsement will come early this year — at a state party convention pushed up to April 23-25 — before the constitutional deadline to end the legislative session on May 17.

Little progress or disappointing deals at a legislature that’s still in session at convention time could look bad to delegates and take a toll on Kelliher. One way around that would be to delay tough legislative decisions until after the convention — “a risky scenario,” says Schultz, “but then all scenarios are risky for her.” Indeed, he says, state GOP leaders could be the ones to profit from delay, following their national-party leaders’ example.

Kelliher offered no guess as to whether the session might end earlier than May 17, but pointed out that DFLers intend to get the session off to an early start with action on jobs and the economy. The start of the session is another busy time: Precinct caucuses are set for Feb. 2, while the state legislature convenes Feb. 4. Kelliher says her campaign has been focused on preparing for the caucuses from the start and she expects to do well.

So she’ll be able to do an adequate job as both Speaker and gubernatorial candidate? Better than that — she says she plans on “excelling at both.”

Needs and ambitions

There are other candidates whose day jobs complicate life on the campaign trail — Kelliher names Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, a DFL rival, for one — but being House Speaker is a special, high-profile position, says Schultz, with the benefits and burdens of being seen as the leader of the legislature, a symbol of its successes or failures.

Speakers haven’t often run for governor, but other legislative leaders have (not including GOP state Rep. Marty Seifert, who stepped down as minority leader last year for his guv run). ”It’s been done,” says Tim Penny, a 2002 Independence Party gubernatorial hopeful, recalling that two of his opponents, Pawlenty and DFLer Roger Moe, were at the time majority leaders in the state House and Senate, respectively.

But in Penny’s judgement, his opponents in that race let politics take precedence over governing. “They didn’t work with [IP Gov. Jesse] Ventura to solve the state’s budget problems, he says: “Minnesota’s needs were not met because their political ambitions overruled them.”

Kelliher is confident she can work with Pawlenty, saying they’ve always had a “fine working relationship [though they] differ drastically on the direction of the state.” Long concurs: “She isn’t necessarily out there swinging at him.”

Will Kelliher pull her punches on Pawlenty’s frequent out-of-state travel in the service of a prospective presidential bid, considering she’s running for higher office too? The state boundaries make all the difference, Kelliher says — Pawlenty’s national ambitions aren’t going to take him for a simple trip “down to a cafe in St. Peter,” as her gubernatorial ambitions might.

A speaker running for governor, says Schultz, could decide to shine as a leader in front of cameras at the expense of necessary backstage negotiating. But that seems likely hazard for her, as Schultz sees, than the simple problem of limited time on her part, with the result that “something gives way, even if inadvertent.”

Kelliher picked up the endorsements from the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 (yesterday) and the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (last week).

How important are such endorsements?

“[B]ecause of changing demographics, union political endorsements may not move the rank-and-file members, whose interests may not be the same as the union leadership, the way they used to be,” Hamline University professor David Schultz told the St. Paul Legal Ledger.

AFSCME Council 5′s executive director disputed that.

“[O]ur members are incredibly motivated to elect a new governor who will promote public services, rebuild the economy of the state and deal with the budget crisis in a way that asks the wealthiest people in the state to pay their fair share of taxes,” Eliot Seide said.