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

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 9, 2010 -- Bob Carney Jr. filed a brief Monday, June 7th, in his case challenging Governor Pawlenty's illegal unallotment of the Political Contribution Refund. In recent weeks, Carney hasn't been the only one saying that unallotment is illegal. On May 5, 2010, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled broadly, saying that in the absence of a balanced budget starting the biennium in 2009 Governor Pawlenty's unallotments "exceeded the authority granted to the executive branch by the statute..." and were "...unlawful and void."

In his appeal, Carney, a candidate for Governor in the Republican primary and a self/described "candidate/journalist", is challenging as "unconstitutional and void" the "omnibus budget bill" passed May 17, 2010 during the one-day Special Session. "The Minnesota Constitution forbids passing a bill on the day 'prescribed for adjournment'. This year, that day was May 17, 2010. The Constitution makes no distinction between a regular session and a special session -- instead, it designates a day," Carney said.

Carney will also participate in a "Meet the Candidates for Governor" event, sponsored by the the India Association of Minnesota and other organizations, at Oak Grove Middle School in Bloomington, from 2 to 5 PM this Sunday, June 13th. Six other candidates have announced they will participate, including the DFL "big three" -- Mark Dayton, Matt Entenza, and Margaret Kelliher -- and the Republican "I won" -- endorsed candidate Tom Emmer.

Candidate/journalist Carney also published today: "Special Report -- Assault on the Minnesota Public Campaign Finance system" -- an extended article on the legal history of his unallotment battle. "This is literally court reporting -- it is a rewrite of the brief I filed Monday," Carney said. Carney's brief was deliberately written to be readable by "normal people". The article will be sent as part of a "special report" news release later this week -- it is online now at www.republicancontract.com.

In addition, candidate/journalist Carney posted an eight minute www.youtube.com video yesterday of a 2006 interview segment with then House Speaker Steve Sviggum, talking about the Minnesota campaign finance system, and the Political Contribution Refund program (enter "bobcarneyvideos" in the youtube.com search box.) "Speaker Sviggum said in that interview that as of 2006 every Republican Legislative campaign was participating in the Minnesota public campaign finance system. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the system. Last summer, I told Steve that if he was endorsed for Governor, I would not run in the primary. He expressed appreciation for that," Carney said. Sviggum later exited the campaign due to an issue regarding the Hatch Act. A transcript of the Sviggum interview follows this news release.

"I believe the mainstream media -- what I call the 'money media', in contrast to the 'free media' (internet, e-mail, youtube) -- should, if nothing else, report on the fact that someone is actually covering in depth the disaster that has befallen public campaign finance in Minnesota. People should be told they can visit www.republicancontract.com and scroll through the news release archive for an extensive history of what has been going on regarding the Pawlenty Administration's assault on our unique campaign finance system. This system has been designed to limit, as much as Constitutionally possible, the domination of big money in our state's politics. It is a disservice to those who look to to the 'money media' for news to withhold this information from them," Carney said.

Carney has been leading a one-man charge for months, trying to preserve the Political Contribution Refund program -- a central element in Minnesota's unique and outstanding system of campaign finance. "I am very grateful to many at the Legislature, and especially Representative Lyndon Carlson and Senator Tom Bakk, who worked with me from May 5th forward to develop a Constitutional amendment that would put the unallotment budget hole up to a vote this fall. At Representative Carlson's request, the Constitutional amendment draft was sent to the Revisor of Statutes, and was 'jacketed' for introduction. It's ready to go now for another Special Session.  However, regarding the lack of support and help from anyone in the Legislature, over a period of many months, on the crucial issue of preserving the PCR and Minnesota's public campaign finance system, I am frankly very disappointed," Carney said.

The May 17, 2010 "omnibus budget bill" includes a provision defunding the Political Contribution Program for the current biennium. "Through the entire course of this bill -- from the May 5th Minnesota Supreme Court opinion in the Brayton unallotment case forward -- there was a total of one public hearing, the morning of Saturday, May 8th, with effectively no advance notice or publicity. Not one single member of the public testified at that hearing. No one knew! The text of major sections of the bill was in fact not available at that hearing, because it had not been completed. This entire process has been pathetic. But this must also be said: the Legislative process is designed to work slowly. In light of the upheaval caused by the Brayton ruling, the Legilslature needed more time. A real Special Session was clearly called for -- with time for Legislators to deliberate, think, and frankly, to get some sleep. Unfortunately, Governor Pawlenty -- who manifestly views the Governor's office as primarily a lever of power -- decided to exploit the situation. Governor Pawlenty succeeded in pushing through his policy agenda, but in doing so he abused and assaulted both the Legislature and the entire process of a '... republican form of government...,'" Carney said.

Carney's undertaking is at a crucial juncture in the course of both state and federal law. Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily ordered the State of Arizona to not provide additional or supplemental matching funds to candidates who participate in that State's voluntary public campaign finance system, and who are running against an opponent who is not participating in the system. Earlier this year, in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court threw out restrictions limiting corporations from making independent expenditures for "electioneering communications."

"I am calling on all candidates for all state non-judicial offices to join with me in fighting against the destruction of Minnesota's public campaign finance system. Over ninety percent of Legislative seats will have no candidate other than a Republican or a DFLer on the General Election ballot. I will also be doing everything I can to organize write-in campaigns for independent minded Legislative candidates -- people who operate outside of the caucus, big money, political machine system," Carney said.

For details on Carney's lawsuit, readers are encouraged to also read Carney's Special Report -- Assault on the Minnesota Public Campaign Finance system.

<end>

Following is a transcript of Carney's 2006 inteview of then Minnesota House Speaker Steve Sviggum; this segment talks about point 5 of Carney's eight point "A Minnesota Republican State Legislator's Contract with Voters", and more generally about Minnesota's Public Campaign Finance system, including the Political Contribution Refund program. This interview segment is also online at www.youtube.com. Enter: bobcarneyvideos in the youtube search box.
 

Carney: Let's take a look at 5. "Special interest money is poison, it leads to interest group politics. However, money in politics is constitutionally difficult or impossible to ban."

Sviggum: Can't do it... it's called the first amendment.

Carney: Freedom of speech, yeah.

Sviggum: It's called the first amendment.

Carney: It's a real dilemma.

Sviggum; It's a real problem, it is. But the first amendment is worth standing up for.

Carney: Oh, it is. But you know, in Minnesota... the rest of this says: "The best option is public campaign financing, including both income tax checkoffs and [the PCR] the current Minnesota option for individuals to receive a rebate for their contribution of up to $50." The internet offers a great opportunity to break down money-driven politics. What do you think about that in particular? What do you think might be happening in politics with the internet, with the ability to have a video distributed over the internet, which sounds like it's happening this year.

Sviggum: the internet allows the opportunity for great information and facts to get out there. I think it allows the opportunity for more informed voters, because of the access to information, access to votes, access to positions. I'm not sure exactly how that relates to the money, because obviously people who run for office still want to get their message out, through the radio, through TV, through direct mail, through buying gas so you can go from one end of the district to the other to knock on doors, I mean, those are all very important. 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.

Carney: So would you be fair to say you think that as a system for public financing it's working pretty well for the state?

Sviggum: I think it's working pretty well. I think, it allows every individual, an opportunity to participate in the process, you know, with the credit that we have, you know, most folks aren't aware of the fact that they could send a state candidate, now it's only for state candidates, fifty bucks, and get it all back from the State of Minnesota. Most people aren't aware of the contribution refund, but you can take part, be a part of the process, you don't have to be a millionaire to do it, and I think that's a pretty grass roots type of campaign fundraising, which is pretty important to Minnesota. Now, I will also tell you, Bob, from my perception, I don't want to go to full, 100% public funding of campaigns, either. I think full, 100% funding of campaigns kind of erodes a little bit, the credibility, or the respect of the individual, you know, should get from voters in order to run for office. So I raise, personally, most of us in the Legislature, raise, maybe, half of our money, in relationship to the public subsidy agreement, or PAC money, I don't take any of those, and then the rest comes from individuals.

Carney: That's... it seems to me that is going pretty well at the state level.

-----------------------

Final comment:

That's a pretty good rundown of how the PCR program works -- or worked -- as part of Minnesota's unique system of campaign finance.

As part of his 2009 unallotments, Governor Pawlenty appears to have set out to destroy the PCR program. So far, he's succeeded.