Ellison’s office said the characterization of his contributions was “shameful” and shouldn’t be seen as an indicator of support in the district.

The article, researched and written by Eric Ostermeier, suggested that Ellison’s out-of-state contributions came from Muslims and asked, “Who does Keith Ellison represent?”

“Ellison’s Page 1 story in becoming the first Muslim elected to Congress has coincided with a surge in campaign contributions from out-of-state, particularly in states with some of the largest numbers of Muslim-American residents (e.g. California, Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan),” wrote Ostermeier. ”

“Our campaign staff and volunteers reflect the community Keith represents. I don’t feel that was reflected [in the report],” said Ellison’s communications director Rick Jauert.

Jauert didn’t dispute that Ellison’s religion was a factor in the campaign contributions and asked, “Why does it matter?”

“I take offense at the notion that there’s a significance that out-of-state contributions were from Muslims. We wouldn’t do the same analysis of evangelical Christian contributions or other religions,” he said. “Why should we let religion get injected into this? This is 2009.”

Jauert said Ellison works on issues that impact everyone in the district. “The economy doesn’t care what religion you are,” he said.

Ostermeier defended his report, saying he made no explicit connections between Ellison’s religion and his funding base.

“The analysis in no place discusses the religious background of Ellison’s actual contributors,” he told the Independent. “Congressman Ellison is the one who connects those dots with his rejoinder. The analysis offers a descriptive account of the demographics of some of the states from which the Congressman is raising such a large percentage of campaign funds.”

The article raises the question of whether it’s important to constituents where a legislator receives financial support. A recent report found that 97 percent of House members raised more than half of their campaign war chests from outside their districts. That report includes political action committee money, which the Smart Politics report did not.

Smart Politics put an emphasis on the first quarter of 2009, when most of Ellison’s contributions came from a fundraiser in Michigan, the state he grew up in. Around 45 people have contributed so far this year, several of whom are members of Ellison’s family in Michigan. Ostermeier’s conclusions are based on $26,000 in quarterly contributions, far less than the $300,000 Rep. Michele Bachmann pulled in.

Despite that, as Smart Politics notes, Ellison has received a higher percentage of individual campaign contributions from out-of-state since his election in 2006 than other members of Minnesota’s delegation.

The recent emphasis on campaign contributions notwithstanding, the people of the Ellison’s district sent him back to Washington with the highest margin of victory in a contested congressional election in state history. As Ostermeier noted in January, “[I]n 2008 Ellison registered the single largest contested victory for a 1-term U.S. House incumbent in the history of the Gopher State – dating back over 150 years.”

Jauert agreed. “He had one the the highest, if not the highest, margins of victory in his class so he must be doing something right.”

The hail of criticism that followed her accusations on MSNBC’s “Hardball” of anti-Americanism in Congress came to be seen by “some voters,” according to Smart Politics’ Eric Ostermeier,

… as an attack on the 6th District itself (and certainly on those residents who had voted her into office in 2006). Combine that with the fact that Bachmann’s comments on Hardball probably were not seen as that controversial to many 6th CD voters, and one has a backlash in the making. … Minnesotans in the the 6th District responded in kind by holding back the Democratic wave just enough to successfully defend Bachmann’s seat, and, perhaps, their own pride.

Ostermeier backs up his contention of a Democratic drift in the district with tables of election stats, leading to his conclusion that “Bachmann deserves some credit for extending her political half-life.” But discussion of the role of the Independence Party’s Bob Anderson, who in 2008 drew 10 percent of the votes in an election that saw Bachmann beat Democrat Elwyn Tinklenberg by a margin of 3 percent, is nowhere to be found. Likewise for evidence to back up the “fact” that Minnesotans voted Bachmann back into office as an expression of pride. Nevertheless, Ostermeier has this bracing warning for those who would prefer a world where Bachmann doesn’t represent Minnesotans in Congress:

As such, despite the fact that many on the left go to bed at night praying Bachmann’s recent comments on KTLX regarding the country “running out of rich people” will be the comment that leads to her undoing, they are going to be sorely disappointed. Bachmann has shown she can not only dust herself off the ground, but she can so do immaculately, even in the face of a Democratic windstorm.

The occasion for Smart Politics’ analysis and musings is the inclusion of Minnesota’s 6th District yesterday in the Rothenberg Political Report’s first rating of the 2010 U.S. House races. Bachmann joins 3rd District U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen among eight Republican incumbents whose chances at re-election the report finds favorable at this early date, among races that Ostermeier observes are the most “likely Democratic targets” nationally.

UPDATE: Bachmann liked the Smart Politics post so much, she pointed her “BachmannforMN6” Twitter followers to it with her first tweet on that account since November.

In winning the most votes by a slim margin, Franken is “tainted,” according to Republican state Sen. Geoff Michel. And while Michel won’t find an argument with that assertion from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial writers (from whom he may have taken inspiration for his choice of words), history suggests that a slim winning margin won’t hurt Franken at the polls six years from now.

Eric Ostermeier, writing at his Smart Politics blog from the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, takes a look back at past victors in Minnesota elections to the U.S. Senate and finds that “there is virtually no difference in the re-election success rate of those who won narrowly and those who won by large margins.”

In fact, Ostermeier reports, senators who won by double-digit margins did slightly worse in the next election cycle than those who won by narrower margins. His conclusion:

In short, if past is prologue (and all things being equal), should Franken prevail and choose to run in 2014, he would seem to have about a 67 percent chance of winning reelection, as 15 of 22 Senators have done before him.

If it seems a bit early (or even a bit nutty) to run the numbers already on Franken’s chances in 2014 on a day when senators of his own party thought better of even trying to seat him a first time — well, it was early. A date-stamp reveals that Ostermeier posted his electoral research on Tuesday, Jan. 6, at 2:38 a.m.