MINNEAPOLIS, M.N. (KELO.com) — Minnesota’s primary election is Aug. 11 and nonpartisan civic engagement leaders said they remain appalled by the influence of outside funds flowing into federal races here. The leaders see a future where state laws could tamp down on so-called “dark money.” Watchdogs said this year’s midterms are another example of political action committees spending big-time cash on races without having to immediately disclose their underlying sources, including corporations.
Mary Hartnett, executive director of the group Clean Elections Minnesota, said past and recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings make it hard to pull the cover off of the activity. “It’s one of the biggest issues that we have in this country. I think it’s just been a steady beat, and it just continues to get worse,” Hartnett contended. Election tracking sources reported upwards of $20 million has been spent by outside groups on the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota. The ads themselves often include accusations of an opponent leaning too much on outside support.
Hartnett praised Hawaii for adopting a new law redefining corporate powers, essentially limiting their political spending clout. Hartnett and other supporters are making a similar push in Minnesota amid questions if the laws will lead to costly court battles. The Minnesota bill was introduced this past spring but did not gain much traction. Supporters like Hartnett hope it will see new life next session and overcome any arguments about limiting free speech. Hartnett contends the policies do not do limit speech, stressing they are an antidote to corporations drowning out political discourse, fueling discontent from voters.
“People in the country are overwhelmingly upset about corruption and undue influence of money in the political system,” Hartnett asserted.
In a spring survey from the Brennan Center for Justice, more than nine in 10 voters saw corruption as a big problem in politics and government. The survey’s definition of corruption included prioritizing the interests of vastly wealthy entities over those of the public.
Comments