Minneapolis Star Tribune, Jan. 8
Here’s a chance to add more more transparency on campaign ads
Minnesotans have the right to know who is paying for issue ads meant to sway elections.
Minnesota has long been a leader in voter turnout. Now the state has a chance to also be a leader in disclosing which individuals and institutions are behind efforts to influence voters.
Disclosure requirements already exist for campaign ads that directly urge voters to specifically back a candidate - so-called “express advocacy” ads that use campaign phrases like “vote for,” ’’elect,” ’’support,” ’’cast your ballot for,” ’’Smith for Congress,” ’’vote against,” ’’defeat” or “reject.”
But in Minnesota, the same rules don’t apply to ads that clearly favor a candidate but do so without the types of words or phrases deployed in express-advocacy ads. These ubiquitous messages might urge voters to call a senator’s or representative’s office and urge her or him to back (or back off) a policy proposal.
Especially when run close to an election, the intent of these ads is quite clear. But who is bankrolling them is not.
That should change. The Legislature should be open to considering new rules if Minnesota’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board advances a proposal to ask lawmakers to require such disclosure for the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy.
Or, as the board states in one of three versions of draft language, “that a communication, when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, including the proximity to the election, is not susceptible to any other interpretation by a reasonable person other than that as advocating the election or defeat of one or more clearly identifiable candidates.”
Minnesota is replete with reasonable people who know what these ads are intended to do. They just don’t know who is paying for them. Requiring disclosure wouldn’t mean regulating content or limiting expenditures - the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, however controversial, has legally settled that matter.
But the disclosure standards promised by politicians who supported Citizens United need to be applied to these ads.
“The identity of the people behind these messages is a crucial tool in interpreting what they are actually telling you, and what they want from the government,” Daniel Weiner, senior counsel with the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, told an editorial writer. “If you don’t apply rules to these ads, then they (disclosure rules) are just paper tigers.”
Voters deserve disclosure, not paper tigers.
When the state’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board revisits the issue at a Feb. 6 meeting, it should move forward with a request for legislators to take up the matter. Lawmakers in St. Paul should embrace, on a bipartisan basis, disclosure rules that provide Minnesotans with more transparency.
“Voters have a right to know who is spending money to influence their vote on Election Day,” Paul Seamus Ryan, vice president of Policy and Litigation at Common Cause, told an editorial writer. “Transparency in elections and government is really important to democracy; a fully informed electorate is critically important to a functioning democracy.”
Minnesota voters are among the most engaged and informed in the country. But more knowledge - especially about expenditures meant to influence elections and governance - is needed.
___
Post Bulletin, Jan. 10
City transparency policy is right step forward
The new plan to make Rochester city government more transparent is appropriate - and probably overdue.
In a city where so much revolves around technology, it always seemed odd to us that efforts to record and post online videos of every government meeting were lagging. It seemed even more odd in 2017 when then-Mayor Ardell Brede vetoed a proposal to spend $25,000 on equipment that would allow the city council’s committee of the whole meetings to be recorded.
That’s all in the past now. On Monday, the council approved a multi-point policy to make city government as transparent and accessible as possible.
For starters, all meetings of the city council and committees are to be recorded, live-streamed and archived. Citizens now have more opportunities to watch their municipal government in action.
In addition, all meetings of city boards and commissions will be recorded and archived.
And poor-quality recordings will not be acceptable. The policy states that “All recording quality shall be at a level that a person watching shall be able to interpret and discern all speakers and materials.”
That’s all fine and good, although there are some wrinkles to iron out. We imagine training operators for the recording systems could take some time. What happens when two or three city meetings are taking place at the same time? Or when meetings are scattered across various buildings? Those are all solvable issues, but it might take some time to work out all the logistics.
Also not to be overlooked in the new policy is the requirement that all meetings be held in handicapped-accessible rooms, and that meetings be held in rooms large enough to provide adequate seating for the public. This was approved earlier, but delayed until this month at the request of an outgoing council member.
However, Monday’s installation of new council members and a new mayor was the ideal time to launch this attempt to make sure all of us have a window into our city government.
“We must provide a more transparent, inclusive and cohesive city government,” said newly sworn-in Mayor Kim Norton.
That, in turn, can only lead to more interest in government, and better informed citizens.
This policy is the right step and the right time, and we applaud its adoption.
___
Mankato Free Press, Jan. 12
River cleanup: Nutrient trading offers solutions
Why it matters: Small cities along the Minnesota River cannot afford expensive sewer treatment plant upgrades to meet new pollution standards that may not make the river cleaner.
When it comes to cleaning up the Minnesota River, the state and cities along the river have two choices: negotiate or litigate.
We prefer negotiation. The Walz administration would be wise to go with that flow.
Many of the small cities along the Minnesota River face new wastewater pollution standards that would require expensive treatment plant upgrades. In the case of Le Sueur, the estimated cost is $10 million. Already the city has filed for a contested case hearing with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
The city of Mankato has also been negotiating with the MPCA as well for the last year or so on its own wastewater permit. New standards would call for substantial investments in Mankato as well as dozens of other cities along the river.
The city of Mankato has proposed in a letter to the MPCA to meet the new phosphorus standards if the PCA and the administration are willing to support a wholesale revamping of the regulation process that allows for independent study and nutrient trading.
Legislation sponsored by Sen. Nick Frentz, DFL-Mankato, would set up a commission to study the issue including stakeholders from business, government and agriculture.
We support Mankato’s collaborative approach and the legislation.
Mankato has been a leader in river cleanup. Over the last 20 years the city has operated a collaborative nutrient trading program with cities and businesses along the river in cooperation with the MPCA. The nutrient trading program allowed Mankato to build a more robust wastewater treatment plant that exceeded MPCA standards. The program allowed others to pay Mankato and count that against their requirements for clean wastewater.
As a result, nutrient pollution from point sources has been reduced by 60 percent, according to a letter from Mankato City Manager Pat Hentges to the MPCA.
The new standards that Mankato and others are challenging would largely do away with that nutrient trading program. That would be a loss for the environment, the cities and the state. The city also argues the research done so far does not support the idea that overall river quality will be improve with the new standards or new expensive treatment plants.
Fortunately, the MPCA under the new Walz administration appears amenable to such negotiations.
The city of Mankato proposal for legislation would create a collaborative approach to setting reasonable standards with all stakeholders including farmers, and provide research that shows what results can be achieved with not only changes in urban development but also rural agriculture.
We urge the Walz administration to take up Mankato’s push for research and collaboration in an effort to ensure new standards make a difference in cleaning up the Minnesota River.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.