consultants are sandburs

Monday, September 01, 2014

A Spot-on complaint to Minnesota's CFB [Campaign Finance Board]. Concerning Michelle MacDonald and others.

Brodkorb reports [with links that are not in the excerpt] on the complaint, filed by a Minnesota lawyer, Steve Timmer, who is not a GOP inner party, nor an outer party functionary:

A complaint alleging that Michelle MacDonald, the Republican endorsed candidate for Minnesota Supreme Court, was coerced or threatened with “economic reprisal” by the officials with and claiming to represent the Republican Party of Minnesota, was filed this afternoon with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.

The complaint filed by Steve Timmer and provided to, names the Republican Party of Minnesota, Republican Party of Minnesota chairman Keith Downey, Republican Party of Minnesota State Executive Committee member Pat Anderson and attorney Patrick Burns.

Brodkorb includes a Scribd link to the 7-page complaint. Bordkorb also posted on Scribd a communication by Ken Burns, who identifies himself as an intemediary between apparent officious intermeddler Pat Anderson [and not the MnGOP leadership, officially] and GOP endorsed judicial candidate Michelle MacDonald. Burns alleges there was a series of exchanges alleged by Burns as promised-confidential but which, according to Burns, MacDonald recorded and released [in part] to the press [or at least to Brodkorb, should you regard him as different from one of "the press"]:

[click the thumbnails to enlarge, read, and smile]

Sorensen, at Bluestem Prairie, has posted of an earlier 2014 CFB complaint, that being a misuse of campaign funds complaint, which was also filed by Timmer.

The misuse of funds level of complaint seems akin to the Iowa Kent Sorenson - Bachmann - Ron/Rand situation, not in scope nor audacity, obviously, but in kind.

The Timmer intimidation-of-a-candidate complaint seems akin to the intimidation-of-an-official indictment in Texas against its governor. The difference being in Minnesota a candidate-candidacy is the focus, whereas in Texas it was an actual public office holder, (an ethics watchdog agency head), that the Texas governor targeted with intimidation effort.

Interestingly in the Texas and MacDonald situation, in each instance, the targeted individual has been subjected to public criticism and scorn over a DUI incident, where the involved lady in each instance has been alleged to have behaved indecorously with arresting authorities.

In Texas the intimidation attack was cross-party, whereas the Minnesota situation is one of GOP internecine strife, but with the complaint filed by one who is not a GOP official/member/affiliate.

One thing to like in the Burns item, he condemns as inappropriate for a Minnesota Supreme Court candidate, the speech MacDonald gave at the GOP endorsing convention. Others publicly close to or affiliated with the GOP (lawyers included) have, for reasons they know and we can only guess at, regarded even the mention much less criticism of that awful convention performance as a political third-rail to not be touched. Presumably it has something to do with moods among the "GOP base," where "base" might be an adjective, i.e., appropriately calling them the GOP base base. But that's only an opinion.

No comments: