Jonathan Palmer's message yesterday contains some unfair accusations
that tell only half the story. Jonathan is covering over the fact that he
and the Samuels campaign haven't always played by the rules.
(I am not getting into the issue of union printers. The DFL Party
does not require a union bug on its candidates' literature. But most
candidates affiliated with the DFL Party do shop union out of respect and
support for Labor, and many voters take that fact into account. The Samuels
campaign has explained its reasons for going to a non-union shop, and each
voter can weigh that explanation for himself or herself.)
Jonathan writes that "this campaign has been rife not only with
inane questions, but with attacks and threats of legal action against the
campaign for . . . daring to call Don a 'DFL candidate.'" But Jonathan is
not telling the whole story. The wording on the Samuels campaign's
literature violates Minnesota Statutes section 211B.02 relating to false
claims of support. The Fair Campaign Practices chapter is a criminal
statute, and requires that the County Attorney investigate any alleged
violation. The penalty for the candidate is forfeiture of the nomination or
election. (There is also a provision for imprisonment or a fine, not only
for the candidate but also for the involved campaign staff.)
I don't know whether any voter was in fact misled, and I assume that
the wording was a simple mistake by an overzealous, inexperienced staffer
who is unfamiliar with the law. But the wording that was used--regardless of
intent or effect--was wording of the kind that the Fair Campaign Practices
law prohibits, and which the Supreme Court of Minnesota has held in several
cases is misleading as a matter of law. (Ironically, in one of the more
recent cases, the Supreme Court overruled a Hennepin County judge and
nullified an election for Ward 3 alderman. The infringing candidate was
Sandra Hilary.) The Supreme Court has established fairly clear guidelines
under the statute--for example, an unendorsed candidate may still identify
himself or herself as a "member of" or "affiliated with" the DFL Party--but
the Samuels literature violated these clear guidelines.
In spite of advice from the other officers in favor of turning the
infraction into a campaign issue, and instead of simply handing the matter
over to the County Attorney, I wrote privately to Samuels campaign manager
Joe Barisonzi, with whom I have dealt before and whom I respect, in the hope
that he and I could resolve the matter promptly and quietly just between us.
I appreciated the way that the Samuels campaign handled the issue: they
consulted an attorney, and listened to her advice. Mr. Samuels assured me
that he never intended to mislead anyone, and agreed that he would stop
using the illegal wording. I considered the matter closed, I assumed that
the Samuels campaign did too, and I asked that the other officers respect
the discretion with which the Samuels campaign had handled it. The following
week, at Joe Barisonzi's request, I spent a little of my own time
summarizing the applicable legal precedents as a guide for the Samuels
campaign.
I am very disappointed that Jonathan, a member of the Samuels
campaign staff, has now publicly reopened this issue in order to bash the
DFL Party without taking any responsibility for the unlawful conduct that
prompted the "attacks and threats" that he complains of. We just lost one
Ward 3 Council Member over criminal misconduct, and the Council's image has
suffered as a result--partly because some foolishly argued that the crime
was trivial. When I read Jonathan's message, I wrote promptly to Joe
Barisonzi, in the hope that Jonathan was speaking only for himself and not
for the Samuels campaign when he trivialized this violation. I waited 24
hours before posting this reply, but have not heard back.
Next, Jonathan writes, "In fact, I have even been told I should
resign my position as a director of the CD and co-chair of the Affirmative
Action Commission by 5th CD DFL Leadership because it is 'insulting' and
'disrespectful' that I would be 'uppity' enough to have chosen to support an
African American man running as a DFler over the endorsed candidate who is a
White man." I don't know who Jonathan is attributing those quotes to and, on
the DFL Party's behalf, I disown any implication that a candidate's race is
a relevant consideration. If somebody said so, then they weren't speaking
for the Party.
But again, Jonathan is not telling the whole story. He was
approached, respectfully, about his offices in the DFL Party--not because he
was supporting an African American man, because he has knowingly broken the
rules under which he ran for and holds his office. Jonathan is a party
officer. One of the principal functions around which the Party is organized,
and a part of the job description for every party officer at every level, is
getting the Party's en
