An email that can be activated as a separate webpage was sent by Marty to his subscription list, and with that link readers can study its details.
Excerpting from leading introductory paragraphs:
2015 Legislative Report
Dear Friends,
Three weeks after the 2015 Legislative Session adjourned, and shortly after the one-day special session, I want to share my perspectives on the session.
I am pleased that we passed the strongest ban on toxic flame retardant chemicals in the nation and that we adopted a significant proposal to create buffer strips along our state's waterways, but deeply disappointed in many other actions of the legislature.
Both the legislative process and the outcome left much to be desired. Aided by a lack of transparency around the creation and negotiation of budget bills, the legislature caved in to what one columnist described as "environmental vandalism." This is not the way our government should operate, nor the results that Minnesotans deserve. I will continue pushing to reform the political process and to work for a healthy environment and economy for all Minnesotans.
Rep. Alice Hausman and Rep. John Lesch are joining me in hosting a town meeting on July 1, from 6 – 7:30 p.m. at the Hamline-Midway Library, 1558 W Minnehaha Ave in St Paul. We hope that you can join us to discuss the recent legislative session.
Thank you for giving me the honor to serve as your senator.
Sincerely,
John Marty
That is calling a spade a spade. The "environmental vandalism" item Marty references is likely MinnPost, here. It is well written and easy to find content with which readers can agree. The only excerpt needed to emphasize, from the end (with supporting commentary all before that):
But no special expertise is needed to appreciate the scope of these assaults on resources and stewardship programs which, poll after poll consistently shows, are valued highly not only by “environmentalists” but by most everyone.
And that, no doubt, explains why so much of this dirty business was done on the quiet. Look at all the heat Wisconsin’s governor, Scott Walker, has taken for his recent efforts to dismantle citizen boards and hobble regulators assigned to protect the people’s resources.
Mark Dayton can say it was Republican lawmakers and their northern DFL collaborators, not his office, who borrowed a page from Walker’s playbook to pound on the MPCA and shield sulfide mining.
But if he acquiesces to their “gamesmanship,” as Steve Morse of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership has so appropriately termed it, he will be equally and memorably culpable.
I suppose it’s possible, though not very likely, that if the governor were to cast a veto or two in the direction of all this environmental mischief, no better bill could emerge from the special session.
Even so, there would be progress of a kind in opening the mess to a full review in the sunshine.
So I hope that Mark Dayton, for his own sake and ours, listens hard to the crowd outside his house this morning and then asks himself:
Do I want to be remembered as the guy who
-- Vetoed an education spending bill over disputes that few will be able to recall, and fewer explain, a couple of years from now, while
-- Surrendering to a campaign of vandalism against Minnesota’s environmental protections so ugly and venal that people will be talking about it long after my compromise achievement on waterway buffers has begun to fade?
If not already crystal clear from earlier Crabgrass posting: Tom Bakk sold out his own party, in a a shabby way, going well beyond "representing the district" when he was elected earlier by his peers to do more and to hide less in last-minute mischief. He deserves to be unseated from any/all DFL leadership positions in the Minnesota Senate.
Like the MinnPost author, I am hard-pressed to think about giving Mark Dayton a passing grade on his conduct. He aided and abetted Tom Bakk to too great a degree, with a weak excuse over not wanting another shutdown.
Readers must decide for themselves whether other less outspoken legislators aside from Marty should receive their contributions. Who merits contributions is always a personal decision we each make within the political process. Yet, when you come across one as direct and truthful as John Marty the choice facing readers is helpfully clarified.
John Marty's district is secure, so he has that bedrock for the liberty of exercising his expression. Perhaps a good solution for everyone would be if John Marty (alone or along with possible others) were to form a "Minnesotans are Right to Yell Political Action Committee" (a/k/a MartyPAC), where donors would rely upon John Marty's judgment on how best to maximize the good of distributing PAC funds among other candidacies. I do not know if campaign spending law would permit such a step, but if not foreclosed by law my personal hope would be to see John Marty do precisely that.