Minnesota Republicans want to fundamentally redesign the state’s laws governing how candidates raise and spend campaign money.

For the past 40 years, Minnesota candidates could get a partial subsidy for their campaigning from the state. And for most of the last 25 years, donors who give candidates small amounts of money — $50 per person — could get a refund for their contributions. The laws were designed to keep candidacy accessible to all and allow Minnesotans of limited means to connect with candidates.

The unique-to-Minnesota system to curtail “big money” in politics has long had its fans and critics. Right now, the critics are now in charge of the Legislature.

“This is welfare for politicians. We should not be taking taxpayers dollars and giving it to people so they can run for office,” said Rep. Greg Davids, a Preston Republican and chairman of the House Taxes committee chair.

While campaign finance issues tend not to get as much attention as school funding or health care cuts at the Capitol, coming off a presidential election when candidates from both sides of the aisle inveighed against money in politics, the changes may earn extra attention.

‘HUGE MISTAKE’

Republicans will have to fight Democrats, including Gov. Mark Dayton, if they want their proposals to become law.

“The Campaign Public Subsidy Program is one of the last remaining incentives for candidates to limit their campaign spending, and the $50 refund encourages citizens of modest means to participate in elections by supporting candidates of their choice,” Dayton said in a statement to the Pioneer Press. “I similarly oppose the very partisan efforts by some Republican legislators to strip the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board of its independent authority and its funding.”

The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party governor, who largely self-financed his campaigns until his 2014 re-election, did not say he would veto the bills that contain those provisions. But he did put Republicans on notice: with one exception in 2014, he has said he would only sign election and campaign finance bills that have bipartisan support.

“These proposed changes do not meet that standard,” he said.

Democrats in the Legislature are similarly outraged by the changes.

“Someone is going to pay for campaigns. You are just pushing campaigns more, further and further …to special interests to help fund campaigns,” said Senate Minority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook. “That is a huge mistake.”

He and others said the system envisioned by Republicans would ill-serve candidates without deep pockets and previous office.

“I think I know why they are doing it. It’s incredible incumbent protection,” Bakk said.

HOW IT WORKS

In exchange for accepting the partial public subsidies, candidates for Legislature and statewide offices have to agree to spending limits and other restrictions on their campaigns.

If the Republican legislation were to become law, that exchange — subsidies for spending agreements — would be negated. That could mean candidates raise and spend far more than the limits to which the subsidies are tied. Related Articles Washington County candidate forums to be televised

Walz warns Trump and Biden campaigns of COVID rules. Both candidates are coming Friday.

After Biden announces Minnesota campaign trip, Trump plans one of his own on same day

The pandemic changes how candidates run for the Legislature

Presidential race heats up in Minnesota: Trump’s son visits Duluth and Biden’s wife tours Prior Lake

Under the proposal, candidates could voluntarily agree to spending limits.

Jeff Sigurdson, executive director of Minnesota’s Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, told lawmakers that voluntary pledge would have no effect and could not be enforced.

“Requiring the board to waste scarce state resources explaining and advertising a pledge that means nothing is not advisable,” he said in a letter last month.

While the subsidy has been around for nearly 40 years, the political refund program, launched in 1991 has had a spottier history. It was defunded — meaning there was no money for rebates — when the state had a recent deficit. Then it was funded again for a few years. It is currently suspended again. The legislation House Republicans backed would repeal the refund program for good. That complete repeal did not make into a House-Senate proposal this week.

MORE POWER TO CANDIDATES

Chair of the Senate state government committee Mary Kiffmeyer, a Big Lake Republican, said if the intent of the laws was to keep massive money out of Minnesota elections, it has failed.

“Now that we’ve had spending limits in place for a while, what have we seen happen? A huge increase in outside spending,” Kiffmeyer said. “It would be far better to have the spending within the candidates’ control.”

In the 2016 election, thee legislative elections surged past the $1 million mark. In all three, candidates’ spending was less than 20 percent of the total. All the rest came from outside interest groups and parties.

Minnesota’s most expensive legislative races in 2016

State Rep. Sarah Anderson, Kiffmeyer’s House counterpart, said that many people in safe districts — those that are easily won by one party or the other — currently get the campaign subsidies and then feed it back into their party’s coffers.

“I think that’s wrong and I think this is our chance to fix it,” the Plymouth Republican said.

The law says that candidates have to spend at least as much as they are subsidized on their own races. But after that, they are free to contribute to other candidates or their parties.

In the last election, Senate candidates received about $5,000 through the subsidy available to all candidates and House candidates received about half that. Candidates were also eligible to receive additional subsidies — some as high as $13,000 but an average of about $3,000 — that is distributed through a party account and determined by taxpayers when they file their taxes. Democrats tend to receive more money than Republicans through that program.

The political refund program — which allows contributors to get their donation back from the Revenue Department — has tended to benefit Republicans more than Democrats.

The Legislature would dump the subsidy provision for good and House members had wanted to dump the refund provision even though many in the Legislature have benefited from the programs.

“Yes, I use it, because it’s the law,” said Davids, the Republican Taxes Committee chair. But he still wants the state rid of it. “Minnesota has provided welfare for the politicians since the 1970s and I think it’s time that comes to an end.”

This piece has been updated to reflect that the Republican agreement this week did not dump the refund program.