Carney's formal announcement of candidacy is scheduled for 2:00 PM, Monday, January 11th, at the Capitol Rotunda

Contact: Bob Carney Jr. -- (612)-824-4479 -- bob@republicancontract.com

For immediate release                                                                              

Minneapolis, MN, January 5, 2010 -- Minneapolis Moderate Progressive Republican activist and  political and social entrepreneur Bob Carney Jr. will run for Governor of Minnesota in 2010.  Carney will make his formal announcement at a news conference, from 2:00 to 3:00 PM on January 11th, at the Rotunda of the State Capitol.

Carney is the lead plaintiff in the first "unallotment lawsuit", Carney v State of Minnesota, currently before Ramsey County Chief Judge Kathleen Gearin.  Carney is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the Pawlenty Administration's unallocation of the Political Contribution Refund program.  Judge Gearin's decision on the preliminary injunction motion is due on or before January 11th.  Minnesota Statute § 546.27 allows for an extension beyond 90 days by consent of the parties.

"Judge Gearin's decision should be an important element of context for both announcing my candidacy and  for setting forth my goals and objectives," Carney said. 

A proposed solution to the Unallotment impasse

Carney advocates an agreement by Governor Pawlenty to sign something similar or identical to the final revenue bill (H.F. 2323) that he vetoed at the end of the 2009 session. 

Carney commented: "As I read Chief Judge Gearin's memorandum accompanying her recent Temporary Restraining Order, the Judge has concluded that when Governor Pawlenty vetoed H.F. 2323, causing a $2.7 billion deficit, the Governor used unallotment (per the Judge's Memorandum): '...as a weapon by the executive branch to break a stalemate in budget negotiations with the legislature...,'.  However, I see a way out of this mess," Carney continued. 

In 2006, Governor Pawlenty explicitly declined to renew the 'no new taxes' pledge that he subscribed to in 2002.  Had the Governor signed H.F. 2323, taxes would have gone up by about $1 billion, but most of the $2.7 billion deficit would have been eliminated by deferring some spending into the next biennium.  However, the Legislature was only willing to agree to the deferrals as part of a package; insisting that there be a sufficient increase in taxes to make it realistic to pay the deferred amounts in future bienniums. 

"It seems highly unreasonable for the Governor to expect the Legislature to agree to the deferrals without having in place the ability to make good on the obligations in one or more future bienniums," Carney said, and continued: "Beyond that, if the Governor were to attempt to use unallotment later in this biennium in any way associated with the $2.7 billion deficit at the start of the biennium, it seems likely that any final court resolution of these issues -- if it comes to that -- would hold that any such unallotment is fatally flawed due to an unconstitutional use of the unallotment power at the start of the biennium."

"Here's the bottom line: The Governor made no campaign committment not to raise taxes.  The only reasonable way to undo what has been held to be an unconstituional use of unallotment powers is to go back to the starting point of a biennium, and sign an updated revenue bill that retroactively effects an initially balanced budget, based on what was known at the end of the 2009 Legislative session," Carney said.  "From that point forward, the Governor and the Legislature can and should negotiate.  However, Judge Gearin has made it clear that the Governor does have the power to use unallotment, when done properly and according to the statute, to address the further $1.2 deficit that is now projected," Carney concluded.

"In short, the Governor should agree to a revised revenue bill that includes about a $1 billion tax increase, and the Legislature should understand and accept that the Governor has the final authority to deal with the further $1.2 billion deficit through unallotment," Carney concluded

2006 Campaign Retrospective -- "special interest pledges"

"A campaign based on ideas and principles can yield extraordinary results," Carney said, and continued: "Permit me to offer, as one example, evidence that my 2006 activism yielded some very valuable fruit, which has been preserved and stored up, and can now be used this election cycle," Carney said.

In 2006 Carney advanced a seven point "Minnesota Republican Governor's Contract with Voters".  Carney's 2010 version will be very similar, including point three from both versions: "The Governor will not be bound by any economic special interest pledge."

"Governor Pawlenty came to speak at the 5th District Convention," Carney said, and continued:  "As he was leaving, I got up to give him a copy of my 'Minnesota Republican Governor's Contract with Voters'.  He told me he would read it.  On April 19th, I hand delivered a letter to Governor Pawlenty.  I wrote that my preference was to run in 60B for the State House, but I also wrote 'If you significantly differ with the Governor's Contract, I think it is appropriate to take the differences to voters in the Republican primary.'"

Carney received a reply letter (undated) from Michael Krueger, Governor Pawlenty's Campaign Manager, stating: "Our office has received your request for the Governor to sign your 'A Minnesota Republican Governor's Contract with Voters.'  However, the Governor has decided not to sign any pledges for interest groups or individuals at this time."

"Frankly, I was very encouraged by this letter, because it indicated Governor Pawlenty would not be renewing the 'no new taxes' pledge he agreed to in the 2002 campaign," Carney said.  "Governor Pawlenty had agreed to point three of my contract.  Governor Pawlenty also worked in a bipartisan way with the Legislature in arriving at the bonding bill that year," Carney added.  Governor Pawlenty's decision not to renew the 'no new taxes' pledge was reported on by the Star Tribune multiple times in 2006.

"I think this demonstrates two things: first, a willingness on Governor Pawlenty's part to listen, and second, that Moderate Progressive Republicans, such as myself, can have a significant impact on the course of events by advancing ideas through the Republican Convention process, and in Republican primaries if necessary.  In 2006, I felt enough progress had been made to justify not opposing Governor Pawlenty in the primary, and I voted for him in the General election.  In 2010, I think a primary challenge is almost certain, and I have already demonstrated that even the 'threat' of it can be an effective way in changing the direction of our politics," Carney said.

"My experience has been that Republican leaders have always been willing to listen, and to engage with me in a discussion on substantive ideas.  As just one example, in 2006 House Speaker Sviggum and I sat down for a 40 minute videotaped interview, to literally negotiate my 'Minnesota Republican State Legislator's Contract with Voters', point by point.  I modified one point based on our discussion, and we ended up agreeing on seven of the eight points.  I have always thought of the Republican party, and especially the Minnesota party, as a 'party of ideas'.  I expect this will continue to be true in 2010.  While my differences are sometimes very serious, they are founded on principle.  I look forward in this campaign to engaging in discussion and dialogue with other Republican candidates for Governor based on my 'Minnesota Republican Governor's Contract with Voters,' and advancing other Contracts with Voters," Carney concluded.