The Republican Party of Minnesota carried a debt of twice what the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party carries. And while it raised more money during September than the DFL, the GOP also spent more than it took in.

The DFL paid down some of its debt but ended September $242,593 in the hole, slightly down from last month’s debt of $261,353. The party took in $1,118,398 and spent $1,112,415. It had $53,513 in cash on hand at the end of the month.

At this point in 2009—the most recent off-election year—the party had a debt of $168,015.

The GOP carried a higher debt into October. The party had a debt of $533,222 compared to $546,779 last month. The party took in $1,734,700 but spent a bit more—$1,759,210. The party ended September with a negative cash on hand balance of $55,788.

In October 2009, the GOP listed a $193,314 debt.

As heated discussions continue over the national debt, two of Minnesota’s major political parties are wresting with significant debts of their own. According to Federal Election Commission reports filed at the end of July, both the GOP and DFL continue to carry debt from the 2010 election cycle. The Republican Party of Minnesota owes the most — more than $600,000 while the DFL owes close to $300,000. The GOP also had a negative cash-on-hand balance.

The DFL ended June with $291,950.71 in debt while the GOP ended in the red to the tune of $608,147.51. At the end of 2010, the GOP had $681,066 in debt and the DFL had a deficit of $217,004.

The GOP spent more and took in more than the DFL over the last six months, with $1,155,662.18 in receipts and $1,132,739.48 in spending. The DFL spent $660,252.56 and took in $652,944.91 in the first half of the year.

The FEC reports only count debt for the federal activities of the parties. In March, the Star Tribune reported that the DFL was nearly $700,000 in debt and the GOP had nearly $780,000 in obligations from 2010 it still has to pay off.

GOP chair Tony Sutton, who recently announced he would start drawing a six-figure salary from the party, told the Star Tribune in March that “he expects to pay down about $500,000 of their debt by the end of May.”

“The acceptance of excessive contributions is a serious problem,” the letter said. “Again, the committee’s procedures for processing contributions should be examined and corrected in order to avoid this problem. Although the Commission may take further legal action, prompt action by you to refund, redesignate, and/or reattribute of the excessive amount will be taken into consideration.”

Among the complaints identified by the FEC, Bachmann had “one or more contributions that
appear to exceed the limits set forth in the Act,” “incorrect values in the ‘Election Cycle-to-Date’ field,” “contributions from individuals for which the identification is not complete,” and the report “contains entries for contributions made by more than one person.”

The FEC identified at least 70 errors or illegal contributions on Bachmann’s report (pdf).

(Hat tip: Dump Bachmann)

Coleman took 3rd place in PAC contributions with 3.6 million; Franken was near the bottom at 42nd and only $647,000. Franken and Coleman took top spots in individual contribution with $17.8 million and $12.1 million, respectively.

The only Minnesotan in the top 50 for debts was Priscilla Lord Faris at 14th and $341,155 in debt.

In the House, the only two Minnesotans to raise funds in the top 50 were Rep. Michele Bachmann and Elwyn Tinklenberg with $3.5 million and $3 million respectively.

Then they trended downward — with ups and downs along the way — through Coleman’s concession on the last day of June.

The court battle itself offered occasions for Coleman to exploit for fundraising opportunities, and his recount committee augmented those by reaching out to potential contributors via email, video and his website.

But a major snafu put a bite into Coleman’s recount income in March, after donors learned that their financial data had been exposed in a database breach at colemanforsenate.com. The month started with a high of 43 individual donations for a total of $110,000, his fifth-best week. But four weeks later, after news of the leak had made national headlines, he took in only six checks, his fifth-worst week, for $21,500.

It was a turning point for Coleman’s fundraising methods: The campaign yanked the website’s online donation function, asking donors to mail in checks instead. (A U.S. Secret Service investigation into the data leak was still pending this month.)

Weekly receipts continued to rise and fall afterward but never again reached $100,000. The Coleman Minnesota Recount Committee reported receiving its last check on June 16: $10,000 from David Fisher, founder of the Gap.

Two weeks later, the Minnesota Supreme Court told Coleman it couldn’t help him close his 312-vote gap with Al Franken, and within hours Coleman was letting his supporters down gently, telling them his re-election efforts had reached the end of the runway.

Click to enlarge

So far this year the chairman of the House’s Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has take in $435,000. He had nearly $1 million in the bank at the end of the second quarter. The 18-term congressman is unlikely to face serious opposition in 2010. He won re-election last year with 68 percent of the vote.

Coleman has asked the FEC for an opinion as to whether federal law lets him tap his campaign accounts to cover legal expenses in a pair of civil lawsuits that allege a friend, campaign donor Nasser Kazeminy, funneled his family an unreported $75,000.

In its argument (pdf) CREW cites past FEC opinions, including one that refused to approve the use of campaign funds to pay U.S. Sen. David Vitter’s lawyers for their efforts to repel a subpoena that would require him to testify in a criminal proceeding.

CREW asserts that it would be unprecedented for the FEC to allow Coleman to pay lawyers before he has even been asked to testify:

Indeed, the Commission has never allowed a candidate/officeholder to use campaign funds to pay such legal fees before the candidate/office holder’s testimony was compelled or actually given.

At a minimum, CREW asks the FEC to deny Coleman approval for spending money from his recount committee’s account on lawsuits unrelated to the recount.  In an opinion sought be Coleman’s Democratic rival, Al Franken, commissioners ruled that recount funds may only be spent on recount-related expenses.

CREW notes that Coleman has shifted more than $300,000 from the Coleman Minnesota Recount Committee to the Coleman for Senate ’08 account and speculates that the latter account may be mostly made up of funds from the former at this point.

Interestingly, CREW cites Coleman’s request to the FEC as having been filed April 3, the date that appears on his letter requesting an advisory opinion — rather than May 12, the date on which the FEC posted Coleman’s request on its website.

The FEC is required to reply within 60 days to a request from a candidate or office-holder. Were the FEC to start its clock at the date CREW cites, commissioners would have to issue a ruling within days of oral arguments in Coleman’s election-contest appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court set for June 1.

Coleman’s campaign said back-and-forth with the FEC over paperwork delayed a request he promised to make in December.

CREW filed a complaint with the Senate ethics committee last summer after revelations that Kazeminy paid for Coleman’s suits. The former senator’s request also asked the FEC to rule on whether he could spend campaign money on expenses related to that complaint.

Coleman received a “dishonorable mention” on CREW’s list of the most corrupt members of Congress last year.

CREW has also been a fierce critic of the FEC and its commissioners, urging President Obama to follow through on campaign promises to reform the agency.

Norm and Laurie Coleman at a 2008 campaign event (Paul Demko)

Norm Coleman is facing massive legal bills.

The former senator took another substantial financial hit yesterday when the three-judge panel presiding over the U.S. Senate contest ruled that Al Franken won the election. The judges also ordered Coleman to pay for court costs accrued during the trial. While this does not include attorney’s fees, it does cover administrative expenses such as witness transportation and copy costs. Given that the seven-week case included 19,000 pages of legal pleadings, 1,717 individual exhibits, and testimony from 142 witnesses, it would seem that such costs could be substantial.

In addition, as indicated in a March 2 ruling, Coleman will be responsible for some of Franken’s legal bills. This punishment stems from Coleman’s lawyers failure to properly disclose contacts with a potential trial witness. It’s impossible to say exactly what the financial damage will turn out to be. Marc Elias, Franken’s lead recount attorney, declined to speculate on how much money this might entail during a conference call with reporters Tuesday afternoon.

Coleman has had a team of high-profile lawyers on retainer for months to fight the U.S. Senate contest. Determining exactly how much this litigation will ultimately cost is impossible at this point. But Nate Silver recently estimated the damage to be around $145,000 per week. (Coleman’s first quarter FEC report, which should shed some light on the matter, is due tomorrow.)

What’s more, Coleman faces seemingly substantial legal bills stemming from a pair of lawsuits related to his relationship with longtime associate Nasser Kazeminy. The former senator said back in December that he would ask the the Federal Election Commission whether he could utilize his campaign funds to cover attorney’s fees related to allegations that Kazeminy attempted to funnel $75,000 to the then-sitting senator. But according to FEC records, Coleman never followed through on seeking what’s known as an “advisory opinion.”

Roll Call (subscription only) recently attempted to get an explanation from the Coleman campaign as to why they failed to seek FEC clearance for using campaign funds to pay his legal bills. But repeated phone calls and emails were ignored.

Coleman is under no obligation to seek explicit permission for the fundraising scheme, but legislators often seek guidance from the agency in controversial matters. Last week, for instance, Rep. Elton Gallegly, asked the FEC to clarify whether he could use campaign funds to upgrade the security system on his Southern California home. The reason: a stalker was harassing his wife after an altercation on the campaign trail.

In January, Alliance for a Better Minnesota filed a complaint with the FEC arguing that Coleman’s use of campaign funds to pay legal bills unrelated to election matters ran afoul of the agency’s rules. While the FEC acknowledged receiving the complaint, there has been no further communication on the matter, according to Denise Cardinal, executive director of the liberal advocacy group.

The allegations contained in the pair of lawsuits are still very much alive. A second person involved in the matter recently provided sworn testimony that Kazeminy ordered $75,000 funneled to a Minneapolis insurance firm where Coleman’s wife works. While Coleman is not a party to the cases, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reportedly is also looking into the allegations. The former senator recently refused to answer when asked if he’d been interviewed by the law enforcement agency. Coleman has hired Doug Kelley to represent him in the matter, while his wife has tapped Earl Gray to watch out for her interests. Both are former federal prosecutors turned high-profile defense attorneys. They undoubtedly also charge a pretty penny for their services.

It remains a mystery why Coleman failed to get approval from the FEC to cover these bills with campaign funds. But if the agency ultimately determines that Coleman must pay for the attorneys’ fees himself, it would certainly add to his personal financial troubles.

“Both candidates and their state parties have established recount funds and have raised large sums of money,” notes Franken attorney Marc Elias in the request to the FEC.

“But if the candidates are only able to raise under a single limit for the entire post-election process, and if only the state parties are allowed to establish separate recount funds, then it will be progressively harder to defend the candidates’ and parties’ interest in that process, which has become virtually unprecedented in its length, complexity and expense.”

In addition, the Franken campaign is seeking permission from the FEC to set up a new fund explicitly to raise funds for the election contest currently being argued before a three-judge panel at the Minnesota Supreme Court.

“This fund would be separate from the Committee’s existing recount fund, and would be used only for the purposes of paying for expenses related to the election contest and resulting litigation,” Elias writes. Contributions to this proposed fund would be capped at $2,400 for individuals and $5,000 for political committees.”

Elias asked the FEC to respond to the inquiry within 10 days — which expires on Friday.

Since 2000, the Republican Party of Minnesota has had problems complying with the Federal Election Commission’s requirements for reporting, a fact made painfully clear over the last month as the party has amended virtually every report it has made since 2002. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is responsible for enforcing election laws pertaining to contributions and expenditures by political committees and campaigns.

In 2007, Dwight Tostenson, former finance director for the party, was fired after raising complaints about the party’s bookkeeping. He charged the party with underreporting of debts and obligations, delays in paying staff expenses and misappropriation of retirement money.

Republican Party chair Ron Carey (pictured above) told the Star Tribune last year that the issues had been fixed.

“We’ve looked at all the issues that he raised, and where there was corrective action required, we took corrective action,” Carey said. “Dwight and I came to a mutual, amicable agreement for our separation.”

He continued, “We investigated what the requirements were and made sure we were immediately in full compliance with that.”

But the party hasn’t been in full compliance for some time. In 2001, the party was fined $16,000 for failing to file a report, and rumors of financial problems swirled in 2002.

Those rumors appear to have been accurate as the party has amended every month’s FEC report dating back to the beginning of 2002. In the month of May alone, the party has amended its reports 70 times to correct discrepancies. A good example of the irregularities is demonstrated in the party’s year-end report for 2006.

The first report sent to the FEC said that the party had $136,000 in cash on hand. An amendment made in 2007 said the party had close to $2.8 million in cash on hand, a $2.78 million discrepancy. Then, last week, the party amended the report again to show that at the end of 2006 it had a negative balance of $28,000.

Last week, Hamline University law and political science Prof. David Schultz told the Star Tribune that all the amending looks fishy. “All these amended reports suggest either a concerted effort to hide something or a consistent pattern of bad accounting and fiscal management.” Either way it doesn’t look good.

Carey and the Republican Party have spent considerable time attacking U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken for accounting errors on his tax returns. But Carey hasn’t responded to questions about the party’s financial issues. Carey didn’t respond to Star Tribune requests for comment on the issue, and when pressed for information by a blogger at a press conference attacking Franken, he declined to speak.

But are the irregularities in the party’s FEC reports a big deal? In the complex world of campaign finance reporting, amending reports is a common practice. Blogger TwoPuttTommy gives the breakdown locally and nationally on amended reports. Since 2001, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party has amended its reports 102 times, a number that pales in comparison to the Republican party’s 283 amendments.

A comparison to party operations in other states offers further evidence the Minnesota GOP numbers are outside the norm. Since 2001, the Texas Republican Party has amended …

Continued: Click “Read More”its reports 150 times, and the state Democrats 67. In Iowa, the Republicans amended 52 times and the Democrats 111. In Florida, the Republican Party there amended 45 times and Democrats 133. Missouri Republicans offered amendments to their reports 149 times and the Democrats 117. In Maryland and West Virginia the numbers are similar: fewer than 200 since 2001.

The accounting problems have angered some in the party. Joe Repya, who ran to replace Carey as party chair last year because of complaints of financial mismanagement, fired off this missive on his blog: “There are those of us in the MN GOP that are sick and tired of the shell games, delay tactics and lame excuses that we have been getting for the last year,” he wrote. “It is time to stop trying to deflect the problem as an attempt by the Star Tribune to discredit Republicans. These are not imaginary problems.”

With all the financial issues currently plaguing the party, it’s important to note: Ron Carey has been intimately involved with the party’s finances since 1997, first as the party’s treasurer and then as the party’s chairman.