You do your act of “public participation,” which, as a free speech norm, is defined in a particular way in Minnesota law:
"Public participation" means speech or lawful conduct that is genuinely aimed in whole or in part at procuring favorable government action.
Raising the Tinklenberg lobbyist status question with the U.S. Attorney amounts to that. Public Participation. Two individuals, me and another, where here I only speak for myself on thinking and motive. Seeking favorable government action.
Below is the entire text of the letter requesting a formal inquiry by the U.S. Attorney. It is based on public data - council and other government records that should be trustworthy --meeting minutes approved by vote of the individuals actually there at the table participating in the meeting, explaining what happened.
Click on any image to read it, or open each page in a new window. If you have trouble reading “fine print” I will send a document copy, if you send a blank email to the address on the right sidebar with the subject line saying: SEND LETTER COPY.
The other person signing, Jerry Hiniker, can speak for himself. The letter speaks for itself.
Jerry may have other thoughts and feelings than I do. I do not pretend to speak of them. Jump me or agree with me, not Jerry, because this blog and current posting are my thoughts, alone.
To me the data record shows lobbying activity. But turn the facts over and push for an inquiry by those having the expertise – U.S. Attorney staff lawyers charged with overseeing lobbyist registration law.
As currently amended, The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 is online, and its definition of a lobbyist is: the term “lobbyist” means any individual who is employed or retained by a client for financial or other compensation for services that include more than one lobbying contact, other than an individual whose lobbying activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in the services provided by such individual to that client over a 3-month period. 2 U.S.C. 1602(10).
You or I may have a more “common sense” view of what we believe a “lobbyist” is. However, the U.S. Attorney staff is the proper arbiter of what, under federal statutes, the meanings are and whether Tinklenberg was/is registered, and if he should be or should have been registered.
The full statute text is reachable section by section beyond the definitions, from the above link.
My key belief is if nobody else is asking what the Congressional candidate’s status is or should be under that federal enactment, it must be asked, and I ask it.
Reasonably diligent research indicates Tinklenberg, himself, is not registered and I am not privy to the staff make-up of his “group” to check their status. Certainly, that 20% --- 80% time-split thing in the definition seems a big enough loophole to drive a truck through, but if it is what Tinklenberg Group individuals rely upon in not being registered then it would be incumbent on Tinklenberg, in responding to the U.S. Attorney, to give accountings of his time and time of others billed to clients, and to square that with the public record my fellow citizen and I prepared.
In fairness to an electorate he wants to vote for him in November, disclosure should not be anything less than a full Tinklenberg Group public accounting, i.e., freely open to public and press, voluntarily, without worry over FOIA or other hurdles in citizens getting to see pertinent information.
Blue Man in a Red District has a post, where I have commented, with the premise being Tinklenberg is on record saying he does not lobby at the federal level.
Again, what that means – it depends upon how you define “lobby” but we know from recent past word quibbling such as about “sex with that woman,” that “lobbying” can be equally equivocated. If Tinklenberg’s answer is hair-splitting and equivocation, voters can decide what to make of that. With a federal law requiring “lobbyists” making “lobbying contact” with federal officials to register equivocation is harder. “Lobbying contact” is a statutory term, within the definitions already linked to at the Cornell Legal Information Institute website.
Commenting on Blue Man’s post, I wrote:
By my reckoning, from online resources I trust - town minutes and such where drafts are approved by the various board members so that error in minutes is unlikely - Tinklenberg is [or recently was] lobbying for I-94 in, as the post says, Albertville and in the Hassan Township - Rogers - Dayton for an I-94 interchange to allow dense housing development; for US Highway 10 in Ramsey and Elk River; and for Highway 65 in East Bethel. And each would involve federal contact.
And, what if Tinklenberg is face-to-face with Oberstar, and Jim asks, "Of these projects, which is most deserving of scarce funds?"
He's taking cash from each, for advancing each. How would the wooden dummy [Pinocchio, not El] answer? Agreeing with friends?
[ … I]n criticizing Tom Delay, is it the Dems saying, "Them = bad; our guy = okay?" Is that just? The two old sayings come to mind, putting one's own house in order; and not throwing stones if living in glass houses. The DFL should not glass house itself this election cycle in the Sixth District - my opinion, not Gospel, but I think it is a sound approach to unseating Michele Bachmann. Run the squeaky clean Bob Olson out of caucus. Don't mess around.
I did not edit out the Olson reference in reposting that quote. Some may wish to blame directly or indirectly candidate Olson for how I raise the lobbyist issue. I don't hide from that. It would be inaccurate or unfair to try to hang my actions on anyone else. I am not on Olson;'s staff. I have never met him. Nor have I met Tinklenberg. I support Olson. I will push in caucus for him over Tinklenberg; but the worry I have over letting the revolving door go unchallenged is my focal worry, free of any view of or input one way or the other from candidate Olson or candidate Tinklenberg. My view, mine alone, to support or attack.
Continuing – Blue man said...
I agree on many of your points.
However this is not about Oberstar, Coleman, Klobuchar, or any other federal official.
None of them are responsible to verify Elwyn's status.
It's his responsibility to perform his work in accordance with local, state, and federal statutes.
My reply was, and is –
We are parallel in thinking but there is a divergence. You say the rules exist and should be followed. My view, the golden rule, the guys with the gold make the rules, and compromise always is part of any rule-making. Add to that the livelihood of packs of lawyers skilled at finding and expanding loopholes in the rules, and there is cause to focus on policy and ideals, over rules.
The sin I see as original sin in the machine is the revolving door.
With no rules against it, really, the revolving door exists and from my perspective is harmful to the general well-being of the public.
It is probably at its worse when a regulatory agency ages and has industry people coming in and going back out, where the regulatory purpose soon gets co-opted to the "public good" being touted or without analysis being equated to the "industry good," and with no real voice in opposition.
How do you stop the revolving door?
Should you? How do you best counter the suggestion, those with experience are best suited to continue with their specialized skill set and background knowledge, and should not be artificially constrained where lesser skilled people then are needed to make the hard public and private efforts and decisions?
It's not simple once you get to the details. But Tinklenberg is a paradigm of the revolving door. And of the career politician. I don't like it. I don't think it is particularly good for the nation, or for locales.
It is as much a gut feeling as something provable one way or another. Would Wellstone, on leaving the Senate had he survived to that point, have gone "private" by going around with a Wellstone Group persona, advancing local improvement agendas for attaining public financing aid? I doubt that.
This what-would-Paul-do view is not a litmus test thing. It is a sense of how I would rather see things operate.
Tinklenberg clearly did register in Minnesota as a lobbyist and on Dec. 20, 2007 altered that registration. Whether and why he decided to take that pair of steps in-state but to not register nationally is probably a question of rules and loopholes to rules, rather than to true status of activities.
He did contract to assist promotion of efforts to gain public funding at Met. Council, state, and federal levels; with such funding being courted for local projects where we have no idea of his relative commitment to one over the other as more deserving of implementation.
Several locales wanted their highway project to be blessed. He contracted with each, and each was in competition with the other for scarce funding. How you square that is for you to decide.
I prefer Olson. I don't know either Olson or Tinklenberg personally. I have spoken with neither. I don't know either set of campaign people. I am agnostic that way.
But with Olson, there will be no such revolving door, career politician, lobbyist "baggage" thing for the Bachmann people to carp over and exploit if Olson is the endorsed DFL candidate and if Tinklenberg either honors the endorsement process or ends up second in a primary challenge.
And I view removing Michele Bachmann from Congress as clearly in the public's best interest. That means the best chance of doing so should be followed.
The hard choice. Hating the revolving door and wanting it to see defeat; the lesser evil choice looms - Tinklenberg vs. Bachmann. How do you play that hand?
Ugh. Gag. Arrrr. %&$*&(!!!
I don't like that possibility of the two-party system in action. I greatly distrust a system that results or could result in giving an electorate that kind of Hobson's choice.
That in a nutshell is the rationale I have for taking the step I took, mailing the inquiry letter to the U.S. Attorney to start the ball rolling. It forces the issue to be faced now, as a part of the election process pre-caucus, rather than having it be a GOP mantra later.
Whether you are not troubled by the Revolving Door, the Revolving Door, good or bad, touches Tinklenberg – from mayor of Blaine and Anoka County Official – then the door revolved – consulting on transportation issues – then the door revolved – MnDOT head under Gov. Ventura – then the door revolved – Tinklenberg Group sprang to existence, etc.
Look at it this way - what if each time the door revolves the rolodex-of-leads and contacts grows tenfold? If the man now has a million dollar rolodex, what will it be if elected? After two years in Congress, pension rights vested, and redistricting – might the door revolve yet again?
With a million dollar rolodex going in, a ten million dollar rolodex going out? Whatever actual numbers are now, or in the future might be, I cannot say. But it worries me.
That is why I want the top federal lawyer in the state to have a look.
Every voter in Minnesota’s Sixth District deserves a prompt, thorough, non-partisan and professional wrap up of the inquiry.
It can be done and should be.
_______________UPDATE________________
The post was finished late last night, the day the letter was mailed. A point by point quick highlight of the purposes and gains an inquiry now offers was perhaps something better given earlier in the post, but is still helpful:
1. This vets the question and the answer becomes public disclosure. The candidate, himself, should have vetted the issue before now, without this prodding.
2. Charges of partisan "witch hunting" that could arise if the GOP waits and then takes this very step are forestalled. That is best for the new head of the U.S. Attorney's office, to avoid partisan charges by responding to a citizen effort that is from people not activists within either DFL or GOP leadership circles.
3. The DFL has the issue before it, before caucusing.
4. If Tinklenberg should have registered and simply ignored it, that goes to the candidate's character.
5. Even if Tinklenberg has an entirely valid and clear excuse for not registering, it and his record of conduct would become public information, ideally without need of citizen or press use of FOIA but by full, candid disclosure from the Tinklenberg campaign.
6. The entire revolving door question gains suitable attention.
7. An informed voter is a better voter. Bottom line. Nobody can seriously challenge that. Voters should not be put to the effort Jerry and I made in uncovering and reporting the record of Tinklenberg business solicitation that the letter reviews.
8. Mainstream media is better positioned to see and then pursue the unwinding of the story than bloggers, who are more free to precipitate an inquiry. If bloggers start the ball rolling, press can have their calls returned to flesh out key questions and report the story as it progresses.
9. If what has so far been swept under the rug, the question of how things our letter reported could, if generally known, impact caucus and general election voting, is a question that now moves from backburner to frontburner - where is any harm to the true public interest in that development? I see absolutely none. Writing the letter to get things moving was a clearly needed "public participation" step.