Contact: Bob Carney Jr. -- (612)-824-4479 (home and business)

                                          (612)-710-2212 (cell)

Note: please use this e-mail temporarily -- bobcarneyjr@msn.com

My e-mail address at republicancontract currently has technical problems -- Bob

Note: if you prefer to receive news releases at another e-mail address, please let me know -- Bob

For an archive of all news releases, and more information, please visit: www.republicancontract.com

For immediate release                                                                              

Minneapolis, MN, June 17, 2010 -- Moderate Progressive Republican candidate for Governor Bob Carney Jr. today condemned the plans of MN Forward to funnel "at least $2 million" of corporate money to directly support or oppose candidates for state office.

Carney is running in the Republican primary against Tom Emmer, the Republican endorsed candidate. Carney is challenging the unallotment of the Political Contribution Refund in court. He recently filed a brief in the Court of Appeals, challenging the constitutionality of the 'omnibus budget bill' passed May 17th, 2010. The bill defunded the Political Contribution Refund for the current biennium.

Yesterday the Star Tribune reported:

"MN Forward leaders hope to raise at least $2 million, from small businesses to corporate behemoths like 3M. That's at least four times what the chamber raised in other years from individual contributions."

"MN Forward will work 'with a broad coalition of Minnesota job creators to elect candidates from both parties who support policies that enhance job growth in Minnesota,' said David Olson, chamber president."

Carney, who describes himself as a "candidate/journalist", said: "The MN Forward plan is another part of the continuing assault on Minnesota's Public Campaign Finance system. While this assault has been 'enabled' by the recent Citizens United United States Supreme Court opinion, we are of course all still free to speak out and condemn this -- at least for the time being. We need to fight this with everything we've got -- from states' rights legal challenges, including a possible new state Constitutional amendment -- to a boycott of any corporation that contributes money to organizations like MN Forward -- to a boycott of any media organization that accepts political advertising funded by corporations -- to disclosure requirements for the 'Money Media'," Carney said.

Carney will hold a news conference Friday, June 18th, at 11AM, on the State Capitol steps, on the topic of what he sees as an on-going assault on the Minnesota Public Campaign Finance system. John Uldrich, an Independence Party candidate for Governor will join Carney at the news conference.

Carney said: "My PCR unallotment lawsuit is in that context. I will be challenging other candidates for Governor to step forward and support me in my fight to preserve the Political Contribution Refund, and to fight special interest money in politics. I will be calling on the other candidates to join me in this specific demand: that Minnesota media refuse to accept political advertising from corporations," Carney said. The news event will move inside if it rains (forecast: sunny, 10% chance of rain).

Will our next Legislature be dominated by corporate money?

Carney is particularly concerned about how the Legislature will be influenced by direct corporate spending. Minnesota's Public Campaign Finance system links three elements together:

• the Political Contribution Refund

• money from an income tax checkoff that individuals can designate to a party, and

• acceptance of campaign spending limits.

In a 2006 videotaped interview with then House Speaker Steve Sviggum, this exchange occurred (emphasis added):

Sviggum: I personally, in my campaign, don't accept special interest monies. I accept no PAC monies. The Sviggum volunteer committee has turned back, over the number of years I've served, I bet you over a quarter of million dollars I've turned back to special interest groups.

Now that doesn't mean they're bad. Because I think everybody watching this video, today, tonight, whenever they're watching, Bob, I think every one of them, persons, citizens, including myself, including my wife, I can point to a special interest they have. Either they're a fire fighter, and they're represented down by the Capitol by the state fireman's association. Or they're a policeman, represented here by the peace officer's association. Or they're a teacher, and represented by Education Minnesota, or they're a farmer, and represented by farm bureau, or they're a rural person, and represented by the rural education association. Or they happen to be from the Minneapolis area, and they're represented by the Minneapolis Education Association. I think every person, watching this has certain interests. And those interests are represented here at the Capitol. That isn't bad in itself. The money sometimes gets to be questionable, because it seems like you're almost buying votes, you're almost buying access, or you're buying positions of people who want to be your pawns, you know, special interest groups... they'd love to control me or any other legislator, because they'd love to have pawns down here, voting for them, right? That they can control. I refuse to be a pawn of anybody. As you can probably tell right now.

Carney: It seems to me it's much more of a problem at the national level.

Sviggum: Because the money's bigger, Bob, the money's bigger, the different sides, you know, in Minnesota we, you know, every campaign for the House of Representatives, you know the maximum amount you can spend is like, $28,000, whatever, and most of us spend far less than that.

Carney: Now, for the house and the senate, there are these maximum spending limits, and the public financing, and the $50 checkoff [rebate]. My understanding is that almost all of the legislative campaigns are within those limits.

Sviggum: They are, in fact I can tell you, all Republican campaigns have been within those limits. The only ones to exceed them have been Democrats, have been out to buy offices, or spend more than the campaign limit. If you don't stick within that campaign limit, that $28,000, whatever it is right now, $29,000, if you don't stick within that, and sign a form with the ethical practices, fair and campaign practices board, then your contributors do not get the $50 and $100 back, in their form the political contribution refund, the rebate that you're talking about. And also, if you don't stay within that spending amount, you don't get the public subsidy money either.

The Sviggum interview is online at www.republicancontract.com, and on www.youtube.com (enter "bobcarneyvideos" in the youtube search box.)

Yesterday MPR's NewsQ reported:

"[Governor Pawlenty's spokesman Brian] McClung will start directing the group called MN Forward on Monday. The Minnesota Business Partnership's Charlie Weaver said the fund will aim to influence the governor's race and races in the Minnesota Legislature through advertising and campaign literature. He said it will raise money from business leaders and corporations."

"'It could be five bucks, it could be $500,000,'" Weaver said. 'We really don't know at this point. We're just starting to talk to companies around the state on this. There's certainly an alertness to the importance of this election.'"

"Let's be clear about what Charlie Weaver and the MN Forward folks are saying. That $500,000 Mr. Weaver speaks of can be a contribution from one corporation. The operative phrase for MN Forward is 'at least' -- there is currently nothing to prevent them from raising $5 million, or $10 million, or more!" Carney said.

Carney commented: "As we have seen from Speaker Sviggum, and also from Senator John Marty's example, there was a time when Minnesota politicians could, and did, reject corporate money, even in its regulated PAC form. By accepting -- or rejecting -- PAC money, Minnesota politicians could choose their friends. Under this new regime, Minnesota politicians can't even disassociate themselves with any interest group or Corporate tag-along that wants to support them. Might this eventually result in the equivalent of 'a bribe that you literally can't refuse?'"

Good News for the "Money Media?" -- Carney calls for "media disclosure"

The MN Forward action may be seen as good news for the "Money Media", Carney said. As one example, MinnPost is entirely dependent on advertising and contributions, including big contributors. "More political ads could be a real bonanza for MinnPost. But more generally, we need to consider some questions about the relationships between and among the 'Money Media', corporate political advertising, 'big bucks' contributors to organizations like MinnPost, state subsidies like those to MPR, and how the 'Money Media' covers politics and political campaigns," Carney said.

According to an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report:

• U.S. newspaper revenue fell 30% from 2007 to 2009.

• Less than half of Americans read newspapers in 2008.

• Advertising contributed 87% of U.S. newspaper revenue in 2008. By contrast, advertising contributed about 50% in Britain and Germany, and 35% in Japan.

The Federal Trade Commission has commissioned a study of possible federal subsidies of news organizations, including changes in copyright law, anti-trust exemptions, and various possible taxes.

According to Carney, before the internet, the high entry cost of the newspaper business actually made it possible for newspapers to maintain a separation between the news department and the rest of the business.  Both advertisers and readers had only limited choices; newspapers were effectively oligopolies.  Advertisers couldn't realistically pull advertising if they were the target of legitimate newspaper criticism.  Subscribers had to put up with reading things they disagreed with.  Those days are gone.

"The 'Money Media' is desperate for cash -- especially newspapers, with their enormous fixed cost overhead. There is no reason to assume the 'Money Media' is any more resistant to influence and domination by special interests than politicians are. Opening a spigot of corporate cash for political ads may frankly be welcomed by many media organizations, and the influence of this cash may reasonably be perceived as extending to news coverage. I have observed that how much money candidates are raising and spending is a prominent aspect of news reporting on political campaigns. Is this a kind of 'shakedown' reporting?" Carney said.

"There is a further aspect to corporate political advertising directed for or against candidates.  Unlike political campaigns and parties, corporations who advertise politically also typically spend far more money on general advertising.  Their political ads can be seen as announcements of what public policies, and candidates, they favor or oppose.  If a 'Money Media' organization doesn't toe their line, all of their advertising, or a big chunk of it, can move elsewhere.  Corporate political ads supporting or opposing a specific candidate are literally the 'tip of the iceberg' -- advertising money that represents the bulk of all revenue -- money that is pushing 'Money Media' organizations towards specific agendas," Carney added.

Carney is calling for media disclosure, including the following key elements:

• Total political advertising revenue received, and projected for the current election cycle

  • A subtotal of political advertising paid for by corporations, both received and projected

  • Both of the above amounts as a percentage of total revenue received

• Total spending on political news coverage, including:

  • direct cost of reporters and news staff

  • Association fees and expenses

  • Subtotals for state and local coverage

Carney commented: "Here's what I expect to find for newspapers: when you compare the direct cost of state and local political reporting to the revenue from political advertising, political coverage will be a net money maker. In my view, people work for the people who pay them. There is an overwhelming bias built in to this system that favors paid political campaigns. The possibility that a campaign could succeed with no money, by using 'free media' -- the internet, e-mail, youtube -- is a threat to newspapers. It would undermine and erode -- maybe that should be spelled 'e-road' -- the 'middle man' role between money and political events."

Carney offered this forecast: "Corporate direct spending to support or oppose candidates will be a financial bonanza to the news media. It seems inevitable that political coverage will be further biased in favor of corporate interests. However, this entire system can be reformed -- and it must be reformed."

<end>