UnitedHealth
Group, United Healthcare Services and Optum had sued the news
organization, alleging the article was defamatory and defamatory by
implication.
The
Guardian's U.S. entity sought dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing
the complaint failed to state a legally viable claim. The Guardian's
U.K. parent companies separately moved to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2) or, alternatively, for failure to state
a claim.
After
reviewing the article, legal briefs and oral arguments, the court sided
with the defendants. "For the following reasons, after reviewing the
Article, the parties' briefing, and oral argument, the Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED," the opinion stated.
"[...] Today's decision is a vindication of The Guardian's
deeply sourced, independent reporting, and a rejection of UnitedHealth's
bullying and intimidation tactics."
[...] The
decision represents an early victory for The Guardian in a closely
watched case involving investigative reporting into one of the nation's
largest healthcare companies. It was not immediately clear from the
opinion whether the dismissal was with prejudice, which would prevent
UnitedHealth from refiling its claims, or whether the company could
amend its complaint or appeal the decision.
Representatives for UnitedHealth did not immediately respond to TheWrap's request for comment.
HEADLINE: UnitedHealth reduced hospitalizations for nursing home seniors. Now it faces wrongful death claims - The
company says it is protecting nursing home residents by curbing
unnecessary hospital transfers. Whistleblowers allege cost-cutting
tactics have endangered the elderly
Three nursing home residents died because employees of the American healthcare giant UnitedHealth Group helped delay or deny them critical hospital care, two pending lawsuits and a complaint to state authorities have alleged.
The
three cases involve a UnitedHealth partnership initiative that places
medical staff from the company’s direct care unit, Optum, inside nursing
homes to care for residents insured by the company’s insurance arm.
UnitedHealth says one of the initiative’s goals is to protect patients by reducing unnecessary hospital admissions. Those are admissions the insurance giant would otherwise have to pay for.
In Georgia, the family of a woman named Cindy Deal filed a lawsuit alleging
that the 58-year-old died because Optum and her nursing home failed to
hospitalize her for hours after she started foaming at the mouth and
appeared to be having a seizure.
In Ohio, the family of a retiree named Mary Grant filed a lawsuit claiming
that the 70-year-old died after Optum and Grant’s nursing home failed
to send her to the hospital, though she had suffered a traumatic head
injury and began vomiting.
In New York, a physician’s assistant named
Christopher Bieniek alleged in a complaint to state authorities that a
63-year-old nursing home resident died due to “gross negligence” by an
Optum employee. The employee refused to hospitalize the man, despite his
kidney failure, according to text messages Bieniek says he shared with
state investigators.
Citing patient privacy
rules and pending litigation, UnitedHealth’s public relations team did
not directly respond to specific questions about the three cases, but
said that many of the claims were unsubstantiated or based on incomplete
or embellished information.
The company has previouslydenied the Grant and Deal families’ claims in court, and attorneys representing UnitedHealth disputed some of Bieniek’s claims.
“We
remain confident in our transparency, our compliance and our steadfast
commitment to patient-centered care,” the company said. “We will not
legitimize a one-sided and misinformed narrative by further engaging
with it. Our focus continues to be where it belongs: delivering
high-quality care for our members and standing with the clinicians and
care teams who devote themselves every day to improving patients’
lives.”
The three cases highlight the dual
role that UnitedHealth has taken on for thousands of nursing home
residents across the country: medical insurer and provider of direct
care.
Like many American health insurers,
UnitedHealth has expanded across the healthcare sector and no longer
limits itself to simply paying or denying its members’ medical bills.
In nursing homes, for example, the conglomerate deploys its own army
of nurse practitioners and physician assistants from its medical
services arm, Optum, to care for seniors covered by its insurance arm,
UnitedHealthcare. During the day, these medical professionals listen to
heart sounds, decide on new diagnoses, and address dangerous
complications for insured residents at their nursing homes. At night and
on weekends, other Optum employees on hotlines weigh in on their care
from afar.
UnitedHealth insures more than 55,000 long-term
nursing home residents through what are known as institutional special
needs plans (I-SNPs), which are funded through the federal government’s
Medicare Advantage program. While other insurers also employ their own
medical providers, UnitedHealth is by far the biggest player in the I-SNP market, covering almost as many residents as all of its rivals combined.
UnitedHealth says this hands-on nursing home model provides an “extra layer of caring support”
that helps reduce unnecessary hospital trips for long-term residents at
more than 1,900 nursing homes in 29 states across the US. “United works
with the nursing facility, primary care physicians, and specialists to
deliver appropriate care for members in the most appropriate setting,”
the company said in an email, noting that a non-profit called the
National Committee for Quality Assurance recently awarded its care model
a 98.75% score.
Hospitalizations, the company
notes, can lead to serious issues for nursing home residents, such as
delirium, falls and pressure injuries.
They can also lead to major expenses for the insurance giant, a financial arrangement that lawmakers
and corporate whistleblowers have framed as a potential conflict of
interest incentivizing the conglomerate to discourage necessary
hospitalizations too.
Under Medicare
Advantage, the government pays insurers like UnitedHealthcare a set
amount of money based on the expected healthcare needs of each senior
enrolled in their insurance plans for long-term nursing home residents.
The less insurers spend on residents’ care, the more they have left over
in taxpayer funds for potential profit.
In
addition to the complaints from the families and the outside medical
provider, UnitedHealth’s nursing home initiative has been the subject of
at least four whistleblower complaints from former employees. The
whistleblowers allege that employees from Optum, UnitedHealth’s direct
care subsidiary, engaged in unethical tactics that sought to curb costly
but critical hospital care, or violated federal rules meant to protect
nursing home residents from predatory insurance sales tactics.
Two
of the whistleblowers, both former Optum nurse practitioners, filed
declarations with Congress, alleging that company managers improperly
pressured them to reduce hospital transfers for nursing home seniors,
and to get residents on to medical directives, such as
“Do-Not-Resuscitate” orders, that could pre-empt costly emergency room
care. The declarations also allege that supervisors pushed them to
creatively code patient diagnoses to increase federal payments for the
company.
UnitedHealth said it categorically
rejected any suggestion that its employees engage in practices that
endanger patient safety or violate ethical standards. It said that the
suggestion that its employees prevented hospital transfers was false,
and that its permission was not required for nursing home residents to
go to the hospital.
The company added that
“the insinuation that the desire to decrease unnecessary
hospitalizations is motivated solely by financial considerations ignores
well established evidence of the harm unnecessary hospitalizations can
cause.”
Policy experts say reducing
unnecessary hospitalizations is important to cutting wasteful
expenditures and protecting frail nursing home residents, but caution
that these efforts must allow medical providers to follow their genuine
clinical judgments.
“You don’t want to then
overcorrect and basically align the incentives so that people are never
sent to the hospital when they really need to go to the hospital for
appropriate care,” said Gretchen Jacobson, vice-president of Medicare
policy at the Commonwealth Fund, a healthcare research non-profit.
Medical researchers have found that a sizable portion of hospitalizations of nursing home residents may be unnecessary. A study
published in July in the medical journal JAMDA, for example, found that
one-third of hospital admissions among thousands of “severely impaired”
nursing home residents appeared to be “potentially avoidable
hospitalizations”.
[...] In June, UnitedHealth sued the
Guardian alleging defamation for a previous story about UnitedHealth’s
efforts to reduce hospitalizations among nursing home residents.
The
lawsuit from the healthcare giant, which brought in more than $400bn in
revenue last year, was the latest in a series of aggressive tactics
aimed at quieting its critics, the New York Times reported.
In
the wake of the suit, the Guardian stood by its story, and continued
its reporting process, which identified the three allegations of
wrongful deaths.
These allegations, as well as
details from four whistleblower complaints about United Health’s I-SNP
nursing home program, have never previously been made public by the
press or government agencies.
“We are
disappointed the Guardian has continued a pattern of biased and
misleading reporting that does not reflect the value of the I-SNP
clinical model or the benefits we provide to our members,” UnitedHealth
said in a statement. “The inaccuracies have been so persistent and
harmful we have pursued legal action – an extraordinary step we take to
protect the integrity of our work, our care teams and the people we
serve.”
After the Guardian published its first story on UnitedHealth’s nursing home initiative, Senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren held a briefing with UnitedHealth about its nursing home program and decided to launch an investigation seeking company documents.
“Nursing
home residents and their families should not live in fear of a
for-profit health care company withholding care when it is most
critical,” the senators wrote in a letter to the company.
A whistleblower’s complaint
When
Maxwell Ollivant first started working as a nurse practitioner for
UnitedHealth’s nursing home program, he believed in his company’s care
model.
Maxwell Ollivant. Photograph: George Joseph/The Guardian
As
an employee of UnitedHealth’s direct care subsidiary, Optum, Ollivant’s
job was to visit and check on dozens of seniors at three nursing homes
in the suburbs of Tacoma, Washington. The goal: to identify medical
complications early and address them, protecting residents from needless
hospitalizations.
Ollivant was excited to
work in geriatric care. When he was young, his grandfather had supported
him after the shock of his parents’ divorce. Now he would be able to
care for seniors like him.
Less than a year
into the new job, however, the nurse practitioner, a committed
Christian, started to have concerns that his company was going too far,
inserting itself into nursing home emergencies and effectively delaying
or discouraging necessary hospitalizations, according to the lawsuit and
congressional declaration he later filed.
When
Ollivant visited his assigned nursing homes, he saw images with large
red STOP signs in his patients’ charts, according to the declaration
Ollivant filed in May with Congress as well as the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Washington
state attorney general. The signs instructed nursing home staff to call
UnitedHealth’s Optum unit first, rather than their independent primary
care doctors, when a patient’s condition worsened, the declaration said.
If
a nursing home did send a patient to the hospital without first
contacting Optum and following various protocols, Ollivant and his
colleagues “were instructed to chastise the nursing facility staff”, the
declaration said.
Such scrutiny could even
follow a hospitalization for an emergency situation, as one Optum email
stemming from Ollivant’s litigation indicates.
In
that case, nursing home staff sent a resident to the hospital because
she was found drooling, unresponsive and with a “slant to the side”, the
email said. Thesymptoms
pointed to a possible stroke, an emergency that requires rapid
treatment, and the woman was subsequently admitted to a hospital’s
intensive care unit for “intrabrain bleeding”, a life-threatening type of stroke, according to the email.
But
after the transfer, Ollivant’s manager emailed her team that the
nursing home had sidestepped the company’s protocol, failing to take the
time to first call a hotline operated by Optum’s off-site medical
staffers.
“This is by pass,” the manager
wrote, referring to Optum’s term for when nursing home staff skipped
over its intermediary clinicians to hospitalize a resident. “Nursing did
not call Optum on call.”
The manager then met
with the nursing home’s director of nursing services and scheduled an
in-service training to re-educate the facility’s nurses, the email
shows.
UnitedHealth did not directly respond to questions about this email.
Four months later, Ollivant went to UnitedHealth’s HR team with
concerns about his company’s response to another emergency, involving a
patient of his, public records from the Washington state attorney
general show.
One Sunday earlier in September,
the 66-year-old nursing home resident had been found with potential
stroke symptoms, but his transfer to a hospital was delayed after his
nursing home contacted UnitedHealth’s on-call hotline, instead of an
independent doctor, according to Ollivant’s lawsuit, which referred to
the man by his initials, “M.T.”
For Ollivant,
the incident showed the danger of Optum’s involvement in emergency
cases, according to the congressional declaration he later filed.
In
its defamation suit and in statements to the Guardian, UnitedHealth
maintained that it repeatedly pushed for M.T.’s transfer and faulted its
nursing home partner for failing to hospitalize the retiree earlier.
Days
after Ollivant reported his concerns about M.T. to UnitedHealth’s HR
department, the company began investigating the nurse practitioner
himself, records released by the company to the Guardian show. It
concluded that Ollivant had failed to properly care for M.T. during a
second incident which the nurse practitioner had also complained about,
according to the company records.
Ollivant submitted his resignation that February – just over three weeks after he filed his internal complaint.
The
nurse practitioner later sued UnitedHealth, then voluntarily dismissed
his suit after the US Department of Justice declined to intervene in the
case. In early May, with the assistance of the legal advocacy
organization Whistleblower Aid, Ollivant submitted his declaration to
state and federal authorities expanding on his previous claims.
In
a statement, UnitedHealth said that Ollivant was “not in a position to
assess the effectiveness of our programs”, claiming he “lacks both the
necessary data and the expertise”.
“Our
position is supported by peer-reviewed studies and measurable outcomes,”
the company said. “In contrast, the criticisms being raised are based
on anecdotes.”
Between July 2024 and June
2025, long-term nursing home members covered by UnitedHealth experienced
38,000 transfers to the ER and 16,000 hospital admissions, the company
said. Of those admissions, it said, nearly half were ordered by skilled
nursing facilities or primary care physicians without Optum’s
involvement.
UnitedHealth also said that the
Department of Justice investigated the whistleblower claims,
interviewing witnesses and obtaining thousands of documents that
“demonstrated significant factual inaccuracies in the allegations”.
UnitedHealth previously told the Guardian that the Department of Justice
found the allegations to be “meritless” and “found no evidence of
wrongdoing”.
UnitedHealth did not respond to requests from the Guardian that it provide evidence for this claim.
‘The goal is to treat in place’
Mary Grant, the nursing home resident in Ohio, never made it to the hospital.
Photographs of Mary Grant in a family album. Photograph: Maddie McGarvey/The Guardian
One
evening two years ago, when a nurse at her facility in Cleveland found
the 70-year-old low on oxygen and covered in pinkish chunks of vomit,
she called the care hotline operated by UnitedHealth’s Optum subsidiary,
instead of an independent doctor, according to nursing notes and an
Optum audio recording released through litigation.
The
day before, a nursing home employee had accidentally rammed a cart into
Grant, knocking her out of her wheelchair, according to a lawsuit that
her family filed in state court in Ohio and was later moved to federal
court. Her head, protected only by strands of thin, gray hair, hit the
concrete floor, leaving a bump on her forehead, patient records released
through discovery and the lawsuit assert.
Now Grant was experiencing nausea and vomiting – signs
of potential bleeding inside her head, according to a doctor who later
filed an affidavit as part of the lawsuit. To assess whether Grant was
bleeding internally and needed surgery, she needed to go to a hospital
and get a CT or MRI scan, the suit claimed.
But
the Optum hotline employee that the nursing home nurse called for
instruction “did not order” Grant’s transfer to the hospital, according
to the suit. After hearing about the fall and head bump from Grant’s
daughter and Grant’s vomiting and low oxygen levels from the nurse, the
Optum liaison determined that a transfer was not yet necessary,
according to a UnitedHealth call log disclosed in response to the suit.
“The goal is to treat in place,” a log from the Optum employee noted later that evening, using language reflecting the company’s efforts to curb unnecessary hospital transfers. “But if condition worsens, send to Soft Point [sic] hospital.”
The
Optum employee told the nursing home to continually check Grant’s vital
signs, order a chest X-ray at her facility, and give her medicine and
oxygen, company logs and audio recordings released through discovery in
the suit show.
This plan of care that Optum
coordinated with its nursing home partner failed to reckon with the
possibility that Grant had suffered a traumatic head injury that was
causing a growing pool of blood to compress the tissue in her brain,
according to court filings by her family.
The next day, nursing home stafffound the retiree dead in her room, according to nursing home notes released through litigation.
In
August, attorneys Michael Hill and Matthew Mooney filed a lawsuit on
behalf of Grant’s family alleging that the off-site nurse practitioner
for UnitedHealth’s Optum unit was not acting “as an independent and
objective medical professional” on the company’s hotline, but instead as
“an insurance adjuster” so that the healthcare giant could
“preemptively deny Mary Grant necessary medical care”.
In a court filing, UnitedHealth denied the Grant family’s allegations.
UnitedHealth’s
public relations team did not directly respond to questions about the
Grant case, but said in a statement: “Where litigation is ongoing, we
are limited in what we can share, but we contest inaccuracies and will
vigorously defend ourselves.”
Allegations of upcoding and changing medical orders to increase federal dollars
The
other former Optum employee who filed a whistleblower declaration with
Congress submitted it while still working at the company. Like Ollivant,
the clinician – who has chosen to remain anonymous – said they were
initially supportive of UnitedHealth’s nursing home initiative.
Once
on the job, however, the nurse practitioner discovered that their team
was under pressure to reduce hospitalizations while inserting
questionable diagnosis codes into patients’ charts in order to increase
federal payouts to UnitedHealth, according to the declaration provided
to state and federal agencies.
“It felt so
unprofessional and bizarre, based on other medical facilities I worked
in, to have managers challenge well-established critical interventions
in cut-and-dry cases,” the whistleblower wrote.
Bonuses
went to nurse practitioners who rarely transferred residents to the
hospital and who mined colleagues’ charts for lucrative diagnosis codes
they could use to bill the federal government, the nurse practitioner
wrote.
Staff went through training to learn
how to deploy diagnosis codes for weak foot pulses and minor skin
spotting, and would be re-educated by company coding specialists if
their coding was deemed insufficient, the declaration alleges.
“These
changes in codes did not change the treatment plan, but they did
generate higher Medicare Advantage payments for UnitedHealthcare,”
according to the declaration.
UnitedHealth did
not directly respond to a question on the allegations about its
employees coding patient diagnoses to increase federal dollars. But the
company said in an email that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services gave UnitedHealth’s nursing home plan a 4.5 star rating.
The
declarations from the anonymous whistleblower and Ollivant also alleged
that UnitedHealth’s Optum unit pushed to get nursing home residents to
consider medical directives, such as “Do-Not-Resuscitate” and
“Do-Not-Hospitalize” orders, which can limit access to life-saving
interventions and pre-empt costly hospitalizations.
UnitedHealth pointed out that advanced care planning had a positive
impact on the quality of residents’ end of life care and said that the
company tracked residents’ care preferences “to align the care provided
with the patient’s health and care goals”.
In the declaration, the anonymous whistleblower acknowledged that
advanced care planning was “very necessary”. But Optum staff, the nurse
practitioner wrote, sometimes convinced patients to agree to orders
limiting their care through counseling that failed to make clear that
some of their ailments may be reversible, and that patients with chronic
conditions might still benefit from hospitalization for less serious
complications.
“This resulted in what seemed
to be a de-escalation of care,” the whistleblower wrote, for patients
“who desired to live longer without extraordinary measures but still
sought treatment for manageable conditions”, such as heart failure,
urinary tract infection, or acute kidney injury.
In his declaration, Ollivant echoed these concerns, describing the
conglomerate’s “push” for “Do-Not-Resuscitate” and “Do-Not-Hospitalize”
orders as an “unconscionable measure” that sought to reduce
UnitedHealth’s costs while increasing its profits.
UnitedHealth denies these claims.
The
company said Optum clinicians are trained to have high-quality
conversations about advance care planning to allow members and families
to make the most informed decisions possible. The company said that it
had never encouraged or pushed a member to sign a “Do-Not-Hospitalize”
or “Do-Not-Resuscitate” order.
“Our health
care providers are ethically bound to respect patient autonomy and
support informed decision-making,” UnitedHealth said in an email.
UnitedHealth’s
June lawsuit criticized the Guardian’s previous reporting on
allegations about its advanced care planning practices. Company
whistleblowers, however, were not alone in questioning its discussions
with patients and their families about such care directives.
More concerns about UnitedHealth’s end-of-life planning push
In
August of 2023, Christopher Bieniek, a physician assistant working for
an independent medical group in upstate New York, filed a complaint with
state authorities alleging that “gross negligence and incompetence” by
an Optum nurse practitioner working at a nursing home alongside him
“resulted in the death” of a resident experiencing congestive heart
failure and kidney failure.
According to the
complaint, the 63-year-old resident was complaining of dizziness and had
very low blood pressure. But when Bieniek pushed for the resident to go
to the hospital citing his kidney failure, the Optum employee simply
responded “no”, according to text messages Bienek says he showed to
investigators from New York’s office of professions, the state’s
licensing authority.
“No?
He has symptomatic hypotension with end organ dysfunction,” Bieniek
replied on the text chain, noting that the man needed rapid IV fluid
injections which he could not receive at the nursing home. The
63-year-old’s medical orders form “says to send to hospital when
medically necessary”, Bieniek pointed out.
Instead of helping to get the man to the hospital where he might have
received costly but life-saving care, Bieniek alleged in his complaint,
the Optum employee “talked the family into changing” his care goal to
comfort care – an end-of-life approach – “despite the condition being
readily treatable and probably reversible even at that late stage”.
The
nursing home resident died soon thereafter, according to Bieniek’s
complaint, which specifically pointed to UnitedHealth’s financial stake
in his patient’s care.
[... ]
The item is long and detailed,
with much more to read. Crabgrass chose to terminate the quote, already lengthy, as
sufficient to show some issues and responses of the giant corporation.
Readers are urged to follow the link if wanting the entire story.
From the excerpt, as quoted, Crabgrass believes it shocks the conscience to see facts Guardian alleged, if true, in its reporting. Again, as noted, Crabgrass did not try to access online court documents, which somehow might have lessened that "shocks the conscience" opinion Crabgrass reached, based upon Guardian's coverage.
UnitedHealth
sued, claiming the article contained numerous false accusations. Among
them: The health care company secretly paid nursing homes to enroll
patients in UnitedHealthcare insurance and then coerced residents to
sign do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, preventing costly hospitalizations
and lifesaving treatments.
On
the DNR issue, the judge wrote: “Nothing in the article states that
United was approaching [patients] and telling them to change their code
status so [United] could save money.”
The indication is there was, over time, ongoing Strib coverage of the situation, and readers who can access the site's paywalled stories have those links Strib included.
It appears that Strib was not sued over anything it published about the situation.
That item - an executive summary to a linked full report - suggests that even if no other healthcare related firm did as Guardian reported about UnitedHealth conduct, the reach of the shock of the reporting is great because of the substantial leading position UnitedHealth has; it's biggest player in healthcare insurance. The 800 pound gorilla in the market.
The obvious answer to private firm abuse or possible abuse of the USA healthcare set-up existing today, as Crabgrass sees things, is to do away with insurance except for extended supplemental private-sector coverage, while enacting by law, ASAP,
Medicare for All, and nothing less.
That would be as a basic universal coverage human right and not as a pubic option to anything else. Anything purchasable from the private sector would be solely supplemental coverage. There would, of course as with Medicare now for senior Americans, have to be rules and limits of what could be covered. There would have to be cost cap planning, because nobody in their right mind would want the healthcare providers to have a blank check from the government. They'd abuse it.
FURTHER: Strib's coverage links to the online biography of the trial judge dismissing the Delaware lawsuit. He has outstanding credentials in the legal community, and the case was filed in the state of incorporation of the firm suing, not as a federal case.
Is summarizing the court's decision, Strib reported:
In
one count, the judge wrote that UnitedHealth Group’s lawsuit “cherry
picks” language to allege the Guardian was making claims that weren’t
actually part of its report.
Scott
dismissed another count after finding the news outlet’s story was
“substantially true” in characterizing certain nursing home bonus
payments from UnitedHealth Group as “secret,” or made “secretly” or
“quietly.”
And
responding to the company’s complaint that omissions in the news report
created a false impression, the judge wrote that the Guardian “is not
required to publish facts just because United would have preferred more
favorable facts. The omissions do not render the statements false.”
Again, Crabgrass made no attempt to find and review court papers online before posting. The post is limited to reporting of coverage by recognized online outlets. With brief added editorial comment.
FURTHER: It should be obvious that the story is important to the upcoming November election because healthcare deficiencies will be a major issue.
Incumbent Congress members, collectively, while having full terms have not delivered Medicare for All.
That might not relate to particular Reps or Senators who as a minority have continuously advocated for it, but if you are unsure when filling out your ballot, do not undersell this negligent aspect of incumbancy by granting incumbancy too great a privilege. There are large amounts of private donor money behind the foot dragging that, in general, has repeatedly been seen or postulated.
Clean house if unsure. Let new voices in. In the general election and if your state has not yet had primary elections. Minnesota's primary will be in August. Try to be as informed as feasible about the political stances of each politician on your ballot.
With embedded short video. That speech was fiction. Start to finish. The elections were secure, there was not any significant fraud, and he doesn't bitch about voting fraud possibility when he won. A piece of work.
[UPDATE: Crabgrass located the Strib paywalled item carried by MSN, here, without paywalling. Analysis below was posted prior than that discovery. It is the most complete analysis Crabgrass found differentiating between the two primary campaigns. Readers are urged to take advantage of unpaywalled access]
Going into a local legislative DFL primary, two candidates have gained more than district-wide attention to be the general election opponent to whoever the Republican candidate is. The District has been largely a Dem voting one, over recent time..
Hoodline, a local coverage provider links to the Strib item, and writes:
Endorsements, money and competing narratives
Latz has lined up backing from high-profile state Democrats, and the
Senate DFL caucus is spending to hang on to his seat. Dumalag,
meanwhile, has secured support from the district’s two House members and
St. Louis Park’s mayor. Her campaign is pitching the race as a mandate
for urgency, especially on housing and neighborhood engagement. "It’s
about the people of this district, and for the first time in 20 years
there is a choice," Dumalag said, as reported by the Star Tribune.
Latz's record and role in St. Paul
Latz chairs the Minnesota Senate Judiciary and Public Safety
Committee and argues that seniority and relationships translate into
concrete wins for his constituents. [...]
Dumalag’s pitch for faster change
Dumalag, a commercial real-estate broker, spent five years on the St.
Louis Park City Council and has centered her campaign on
affordable-housing advocacy and deep neighborhood outreach. [...]
Convention drama and immigration politics
The March district convention ended in a stalemate, with no DFL
endorsement and delegates split between the two candidates, which pushed
the final decision to the August primary. Many Dumalag supporters say
they were galvanized by this winter’s immigration enforcement operations
and the neighborhood organizing that followed. The convention deadlock
and the role of immigration enforcement in the race were detailed by the
Star Tribune.
Why the result matters beyond the district
SD46 is widely expected to stay in DFL hands in November, but the
primary looms large because Democrats control the Minnesota Senate by a
single seat and every member helps decide committee chairs and what
legislation can move. That razor-thin margin means the choice St. Louis
Park Democrats make in August could ripple into what the DFL can
realistically pass at the Capitol, according to Bring Me The News.
What to watch next
The primary is set for August 11, and both Latz and Dumalag appear on
the state’s official candidate list and elections calendar. Voters can
expect the volume to turn up as that date approaches, with more mail
pieces and digital ads highlighting contrasts between the incumbent and
the challenger, per the Minnesota Secretary of State and the Minnesota Secretary of State.
So, old school vs build-it-better. It's a shame Strib paywalls. But the fight of traditional local news outlets for survival is real. Mailer mischief, or was it innocent error, has become a clouding issue. When old ways and new aims collide, the choice can stand best on the issues and how the candidates see things.
Interesting coverage from during the last legislative session seems relevant, even if not directly related to the current primary contest:
Democrat Senators Ron Latz (SD46) and
Susan Pha (SD38) were on separate sides of the issue on a piece of
legislation and this led to personal attacks being launched each way!
The bill, SF1750,
altered regulations surrounding Home Owner Associations. While this
bill would have normally resulted in a mundane floor debate, Latz and
Pha implied that the other was a liar when considering whether to accept
the House's amendments to the bill! This mostly took place following
Pha's speech where she contended with Latz and Judy Seeberger's (SD41)
opposition. See video HERE.
Latz was looking at the legislation
with a careful microscope after decades of passing unconstitutional,
multi-subject, thousand page omnibus bills! Where was Ron Latz in 2024
when Democrats combined multiple omnibus bills into the Omnibus-Prime legislation totally nearly 1,500 pages! It seems he only wants to be meticulous when it comes to protecting tyrannical Home Owner Associations!
One reason Latz and Pha may be
willing to let their internal political disputes be seen in the public
eye is that they have nothing to lose! They are both facing left-wing
primary challenges and know their days in the Capitol may be numbered!
Like Ron Latz’ situation, Susan Pha is also not endorsed by the local party after neither she or her Democratic opponent, leftist activist Nehemiah Garley, could reach the 60% endorsement threshold. Garley had roughly $862 cash on hand as of Dec. 31, 2025 and Pha had roughly $838 cash on hand as of the same date. Garley appears to be supported by several legislators
including one of the Representatives of the district, Huldah
Momanyi-Hiltsley (38A). Following the convention Momanyi-Hiltsley posted
a misleading congratulations on Facebook for Garley, making many
readers think he is endorsed when he isn’t! See below: [...]
A strategic conservative would utilize
and exploit the Democrats’ lack of unity to its fullest extent.
Democrats have ram-rodded their radical agenda through and there is
finally a chink in their armor! They are divided, in conflict, and weak!
Now is the time for conservatives to strike!
So, the other party's print advocate has a look and opinion. The upshot of the long quote is that the Dems are presently looking at a Dem leg super-entrenched fixture, vs new thoughts, while the GOP is having its own internal problems nationally, while locally intact in a MN House split down the middle.
While the GOP is not likely to pick up the seat if Latz looses the primary, they hope.
What is really at stake, old ways against new ideas. The ICE invasion of the state has had its impact, in that Ron Latz was absent and Lynette Dumalag was a part of the entire metro communities' awakened reaction against the heavyhandedness, hatefulness and overbearing stupidity of ICE aims and behavior.
Will the challenge carry the day? This MN local senate district contest has gained more attention than others, and may be a barometer of sorts.
And Crabgrass in headlining has disclosed a progressive bias that favors the challenger over the incumbent. Regular readers would already know about that.
_____________UPDATE_____________
While the Republican outlet's claiming Latz went over this particular bill with a microscope, after watching their linked proceedings video, it seems impossible to dispute that claim. He was quite long-winded. Tediously so, some might think. Smoothly so. What I did not hear from Latz, where words matter, any disclosure of any pecuniary personal interest at stake.
He lists two rental condos in his district on his economic interest disclosure with the state Campaign Finance Board. Latz has said his wife rents out the units and he has little to do with them.
When Homowner Association restraints and regulations, procedural can and cannot do rules are under discussion, and you have a pecuniary interest in two rental units (presumably under separate oversight bodies each with its own covenants, conditions and restrictions) disclosure of that pecuniary stake at the start and in summary would be best practice, since both rental units are under Association jurisdictions, {unless extreme unusual practices not included in reporting exist). Law governing condominiums in Minnesota likely mandate it. But to take the unusual step of tedious time-consuming nitpicking of stuff and then voting for approval of the entire bill as passed to the MN Senate from the other chamber is - quaint. You object so much and look as if wanting to stall a passage, lose the postponement effort, and then take the safe Dem vote to approve a citizen protective thing is what Latz did.
Latz may have disclosed his pecuniary interest, and Crabgrass missed it. But the question, in an election is important. Are you voting for someone who both favors and practice.s transparency, or not? Latz is not a legislative novice. Twenty years on the hill in St Paul I believe. Disclosure of a pecuniary interest, even if indirect, is a generally known norm. It is not a novice being tripped up over some fine point; it is as it seems, Latz gave no disclosure. Knew or should have known disclosure was approprite for his colleagues to weigh his concerns. Twenty years.
Others, especially the Dumalag campaign should pin things down. Disclosure or not. Yes or no? Did he or did he not?
Andy
Brehm is a contributing columnist for the Minnesota Star Tribune. He’s a
corporate lawyer and previously served as U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman’s
press secretary.
Ah, so Norm Coleman's guy says the Pillow Guy is a trainwreck. Taking way too many words to say it. His ending paragraph:
Minnesota voters already know Lindell, and they don’t like him. His
polling is brutal. The June Star Tribune/KARE 11/Hubbard School of
Journalism and Mass Communication Minnesota Poll tested the top three Republicans candidates
for governor against U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar. House Speaker Lisa Demuth
trailed by just eight points, 40% to 48%. But Lindell trailed by 17
points, 36% to 53%, buried in a hole no Republican could climb out of in
this purplish state.
Seems a bit lacking, an undated poll result. Before or after the endorsement? UPDATE: My bad. Reading past the "June" poll disclosure - a poll from before the magic endorsement. Begging the question, but at least disclosing doing it to favor his dog in the hunt.
Doesn't this Brehm guy know a Trump endorsement is the gold standard? Where's he been? Mars? Pillow Guy will coast to a telling victory in November with that endorsement.
Watch. MAGA will show him.
Again, Republicans of Minnesota. Dump the other contests. Put your contribution money - all if it - behind Lindell. It will be well spent, toward better government arising from November voting.
========================================
Readers who follow that Brehm link in the headlining will see a presentation of the man's prior Strib op-ed output. That listing is not paywalled. Way to go, Strib.
Strib reports Donald Trump endorses Mike Lindell as fit to govern the State of Monnesots. I'd think it was a joke but Strib does not joke. IT IS TRUE. THE PILLOW GUY. No qualifications. A bankrupt business, the guy needs a paycheck, and Trump steps up, and says, "Be Governor." What kind of shit is that? Strib -
Trump
went on to write that “nobody has sacrificed more than Mike Lindell in
fighting for our country, especially when it comes to Election
Integrity. ... MIKE LINDELL HAS MY COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT - HE
WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN.”
Trump’s endorsements have often proven to be beneficial
for candidates across the country during primary campaigns. The
president has often made endorsements as retaliation to sitting
officeholders he believes did not support his political agenda at one
time or another.
In
an interview Wednesday, Lindell said he believes Trump’s backing will
carry him to victory over Demuth and Qualls. He pointed to some polls
that found the president’s endorsement would boost him to first place.
“My
mind is just rolling because I’m so excited,” Lindell said, adding that
he did not know the endorsement was coming Wednesday.
NO PAYWALL - PiPress carries the AP version of the story.
President Donald Trump has endorsed MyPillow founder Mike Lindell
for Minnesota governor, praising him as “one of America’s greatest and
most hard working Patriots” and giving formal backing to a fellow
election denier a day before the Republican president delivers a
national address he says will focus on election security.
Lindell established his national profile from his TV advertising
campaign as the MyPillow Guy and has been one of Trump’s most outspoken
supporters, echoing the president’s false claims that his 2020 election
defeat to Democrat Joe Biden was fraudulent.
“Mike will be SPECTACULAR!!! He truly loves Minnesota, as do I, and wants to bring it back from oblivion and embarrassment.
The man is not qualified for the office. He sold pillows, and that's not running a statewide budget and multiple agencies.
It's selling fucking pillows. No more. No less. Exactly that. All he's ever done.
President Donald Trump endorsed Mike
Lindell for Minnesota governor Wednesday, boosting the MyPillow CEO’s
campaign weeks before the Aug. 11 GOP primary.
Lindell is squaring off against House
Speaker Lisa Demuth and retired health care executive and Army veteran
Kendall Qualls, who won the endorsement at the state GOP convention in
the spring.
Trump has a near perfect record when
it comes to endorsing in GOP primaries this year. Democrats are eager to
run against Lindell given his foibles — the Reformer recently reported he hasn’t paid nearly $50,000 in property taxes
on his Tonka Bay home, for instance. Lindell can’t be underestimated,
however: He has a prodigious media machine that can generate a constant
stream of content about himself.
Trump and Lindell have been friendly for years, so the president’s endorsement is not surprising.
“(Lindell) truly loves Minnesota, as
do I, and wants to bring it back from oblivion and embarrassment. He can
do it!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
“Nobody has sacrificed more than Mike Lindell in fighting for our
country, especially when it comes to Election Integrity. He truly
deserves everything he gets – He will MAKE MINNESOTA GREAT AGAIN!!! MIKE
LINDELL HAS MY COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT – HE WILL NOT LET YOU
DOWN.”
In a Reformer
interview, Lindell said Trump’s endorsement will allow him to focus on
fundraising and plan ahead to the November general election.
“It just brings a lot more hope. I
can be a lot more proactive. I’m not gonna let up on winning the primary
and take it for granted. That’s not me,” Lindell said. “I can put a lot
more focus on — not taking the primary for granted — but focused on
getting money and doing the planning of how we’re going to market now
going against Amy Klobuchar.”
Lindell, Qualls and Demuth all said
they would have welcomed Trump’s endorsement despite the president
losing in Minnesota in 2016, 2020 and 2024, and his 41% approval rating
in the state, according to a Star Tribune/KARE 11/Hubbard School of
Journalism poll released last month.
More? The item continues -
The winner of the August primary
election will face presumptive Democratic nominee for governor Sen. Amy
Klobuchar, who is amassing a massive fundraising advantage and is
Minnesota’s most proven vote-getter.
Minnesota Republican Party Chairman
Alex Plechash in a statement denounced Lindell, stating he was not an
electable candidate, especially against Klobuchar.
“When the going got tough under Tim
Walz, Mike Lindell left Minnesota for Texas. Now he wants Minnesota
Republicans to overlook his serious financial baggage, public records
showing tens of thousands in delinquent property taxes, significant
electability concerns and unanswered questions surrounding his running
mate,” Plechash said. “Minnesota cannot afford to nominate a ticket that
gives Democrats an easy target and creates the very real possibility of
another DFL trifecta.”
Lindell says he’s spent millions of
dollars promoting baseless claims about widespread election fraud in the
2020 election — which Trump cited in his endorsement. Trump has
remained fixated on conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, and on
Thursday he’s expected to deliver a primetime address about voting machines and election integrity.
Lindell on Wednesday also praised the timing of Trump’s endorsement.
“What perfect timing on the heels of
tomorrow night’s big announcement of declassifying all the evidence from
the 2020 election that you guys (the media) have called me a liar,”
Lindell said.
A June poll found Lindell leading the
race over Qualls and Demuth, though primary polling is notoriously
difficult. Klobuchar had a significant lead in a potential match-up with
Lindell, 53% to Lindell’s 36%.
I am not a particular fan of Klobuchar. But really. A sick joke of a pillow shill, vs Amy, yeah, okay, Amy's better. Super far from being anywhere near being a progressive, but Klobuchar is better than THE PILLOW GUY. An easy call. But Amy has primary opponents too. Not that that matters.
And again, Tina Smith would have been far better for the job than Amy. After all, she'd run the state while Mark Dayton was the figurehead, so she's experienced.
But Amy it will be.
__________________FURTHER UPDATE________________
After some reflection, a challenge. Republican Minnesotans, if you disagree and think the Pillow Guy is a viable candidate (he can fog a mirror) then put your money behind his campaign. Forget about Emmer, Stauber, the rest down ticket, legislature seats, City or Ramsey Council, damn all that - push for the belief that the Trump endorsement is political gold. That MAGA can push and shove Lindell to victory
Plunge your bucks for Lindell. You could do more that way than otherwise, for good government in your beloved Minnesota. Think it over.
After all is said and done, MinnReformer did note in a previously unquoted paragraph
According to Ballotpedia News,
97% of Trump-endorsed candidates won their primaries this election
cycle. Trump-endorsed candidates in 2026 primaries have won 220 of the
227 races so far. This is similar to 2020 when 98% of Trump-endorsed
candidates won their primaries.
So, see. It works. MAGA needs your money behind Lindell. Invest it that way. Otherwise, what kind of a Republican are you? If not a MAGA one.
The progress came as a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed
a motorist in Maine on Monday, and Houston prosecutors complained the
administration was still withholding critical information in their
investigation into a fatal shooting by an ICE officer last week.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty said the evidence turned over
by U.S. Attorney for Minnesota Daniel Rosen’s office included previously
withheld hard drives containing statements, police body camera video
and other materials in the Minnesota killings. Federal prosecutors also
turned over Good’s badly damaged SUV, she said.
“The wonderful thing now is we have all the evidence,” Moriarty said.
“Any time the government is responsible in whatever way of taking the
life of a community member we need to have a full and thorough
investigation.”
In Maine, another killing by the Stephen Miller fascisti. Who'd have expected it?
Readers might notice the EmptyWheel headline: "Judge Kathleen Williams Hoists the Unitarians on Their Fraudulent Petards"
My first impression was the Unitarians are no worse than the Catholics, but then the accompanying EmptyWheel exigesis made the sense in which the headline spoke clear - not those church-going Unitarians, so read on, three links. Perhaps AP is the better start.
The lawyers in the sham did come into a critique of their rectitude, doing as they did. It seemed to go beyond judgment they'd shown in their actions, to rectitude.
Like - they knew better. Believing they could push that sack of shit past the Judge insulted her judgment and ability to smell it. It is important, so do some follow-up reading.
UPDATE: Trump, in cooking up and then engineering that sham, was patently offensive with no redeeming social merit.
FURTHER: MinnesotaReformer carries that paper's consortium's reporting, saying in effect what the UPDATE said, using headlining:
“No sitting President has ever sued federal agencies completely subject
to his control for monetary benefits, or any benefits that inure to him,
his family, and associates. The failure of any attorney in this case to
address, on this docket, the relationship of this Article II
proscription with the benefits conferred by the ‘settlement’ is a
glaring omission that speaks to the control of the Lead Plaintiff,”
Williams wrote in the 56-page order.
[...]
Trump, his sons and the Trump Organization are “prohibited
from referring to the purported ‘settlement agreement,’ or using,
offering, admitting, or citing any of its provisions in any judicial,
administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or any other official
proceeding as evidence of a ‘settlement’ reached in this matter,”
Williams wrote.
Further, she ordered the Trumps and
their company to reimburse fees for attorneys appointed by the court to
examine Trump’s case against the IRS, an agency under his control as
president.
35 former judges
The president and
his family sued the IRS in January over the late 2019 leak of their tax
information to news media by a government contractor. The contractor had
already been sentenced for the leak in early 2024.
The creation of the “anti-weaponization” fund sparked lawsuits, including from two former police officers who deployed to the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump’s
IRS case was revived in late May when 35 former federal judges
intervened, arguing the settlement fund was “a product of collusion and
is itself a fraud on the Court.”
Lawyers representing the former federal judges hailed Williams’ ruling.
“The
court’s opinion is a resounding victory for the rule of law. We are
proud to represent these former judges in presenting the arguments that
the court adopted,” according to a statement from Norm Eisen, co-founder
and board member of Democracy Defenders Action, Matt Platkin, founding
partner of Platkin LLP, and Susman Godfrey.
I believe I said Trump is patently offensive, with no redeeming social value. In this circumstance, so are his two oldest offspring. And his - let it go. Presuming sense in the electorate, after January 20 of next year, the hearings will buzz. House and Senate.
The Trump administration has stacked
a top chemical safety board with industry-aligned scientists who have a
range of financial conflicts of interest and stand to profit from
deregulation, public health advocates say.
The
Environmental Protection Agency’s science advisory committee on
chemicals (SACC) is slated to review research for dozens of toxic
chemicals during the new members’ terms. At least 13 proposed Trump
appointees are probably conflicted on the chemicals that will be
reviewed, comments filed with the EPA by a coalition of public health
advocacy groups alleges.
Their appointment, critics warn, is designed to provide scientific justification for the EPA’s broader campaign to dismantle the nation’s protections against toxic chemicals.
Among
the appointees are Wade Barranco, employed by Lyondell Chemical
Company, which in 2024 released nearly 1m pounds of chemicals likely to
be reviewed by the SACC during his term, including acetaldehyde,
benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene and styrene.
The
public health groups say the appointees’ participation on reviews in
which there is a conflict could be illegal. They pointed to federal law
and the EPA’s internal guidelines that state that the SACC must be “both
balanced and free of members who have actual or perceived conflicts of
interest or an appearance of a loss of impartiality”.
Perhaps nationwide attention is more neutral than scorn, but when it comes to floods of money in politics, aimed at truning aside a popular outcome; scorn is a proper word.
In a press conference Wednesday, July 8, Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy
Flanagan called on U.S. Rep. Angie Craig to answer for a "flood" of
outside spending while touting the grassroots nature of her own
campaign. Flanagan claimed $12 million in outside spending from
political action committees in support of Craig has made this the most
expensive primary in Minnesota history.
“You've seen them, I've seen them, my kiddo has seen them,”
Flanagan said. “Minnesotans have been inundated with television ads
trying to redeem Congresswoman Angie Craig and attack my record. Those
ads are being paid for by five super PACs and secretive 'dark money'
groups that have already spent more than $12 million trying to sway the
outcome of this election.”
The Flanagan campaign claims the
outside spending is funded namely by the cryptocurrency industry, the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee and health insurance companies.
Craig responded to the claims in a statement Wednesday.
“I’ve
run in five competitive races in Minnesota and in every one of them
Super PACs have come after me. I never once called a press conference to
cry about it,” she said in the statement. “If you think this is bad,
wait until Republicans come after you for the fraud issues in Minnesota.
There is too much at risk in our nation to not just say it: Peggy
Flanagan could lose this Senate seat for Democrats in November if she is
the candidate.”
Craig has repeatedly called Flanagan’s assertions
about outside spending “hypocrisy,” pointing to donations made to the
Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association while Flanagan was chair.
Craig has mentioned a contribution from CoreCivic, a company known to
partner with the federal government for
ICE detention facilities.
"Rather than debate me on the issues and how we’re going to
stand up to Donald Trump she looks to impose a litmus test she herself
has failed," Craig said earlier this month.
On the issues, Craig would lose, being a conservative Democrat. In fairness, Craig lost her first MN HD2 campaign to an idiot talk show host Republican, a Michele Bachmann allay, because Craig ran a poor campaign touting some wrong things and having awful consultantcy adds with cringe-worthy background music. Improving by being more open about her family and spouse and the three children they raised, and realizing a part of her district to be rural with ag and other non-urban character, Craig adapted and improved campaign messaging greatly. She ousted Jason Lewis, the talk show Republican after a single term, and has represented MN HD2 ever since.
It being a conservative district in part channeled Craig into offering and delivering a balanced but conservative leaning campaigning message, which she delivered upon. In short, she represented the mood of her distirct, which is hard to fault.
But still.
That item continues -
Flanagan said Wednesday that during her time at the DLGA, she asked
that the contribution from CoreCivic be donated, and said Craig's
comparison is not “apples to apples.”
“The Democratic Lieutenant Governors Association's sole purpose
is to elect Democrats and Democratic lieutenant governors,” Flanagan
said. “These corporate PACs, these special interest, dark money groups,
their sole purpose is to elect people like Congresswoman Craig, who will
vote for their interests, who will vote for the things, frankly, that
they want to see happen, and will do their bidding — and I think, again,
it's not an even playing field.”
The heat comes just ahead of the
second round of campaign finance reports for federal elections, which
are due next Wednesday, July 15. Craig’s campaign reported nearly $5
million cash on hand on July 7. DFL-endorsed Flanagan's last report
through March showed
$1.1 million cash on hand.
Flanagan simply does not take private prison - ICE detention money, and Craig knows that and knows better than to suggest otherwise. Next -
Most people who read my
newsletter think of Peggy Flanagan's campaign for the Senate in
historic terms. She is a citizen of the White Earth Nation and there has
never been a Native American woman elected to that chamber ever. It's
long past time for that to happen in a representative democracy.
But others see Flanagan as a threat and are willing to spend a lot of money to make sure she doesn't make that history.
It's not uncommon for
U.S. Senate races to cost millions of dollars. But in Minnesota,
spending records are being shattered in a primary election, already
topping $12 million. The most expensive Minnesota primary ever. And most
of that money is trying to make sure that Peggy Flanagan does not win
the DFL Primary next month.
The cool thing is the reasons are ideological.
Across
the country there are millions of dollars being invested to make sure
that "centrist" Democrats win. And the phrase "centrist" captures a few
general themes, such as support for the government of Israel, status quo
in health care (protecting insurance companies and the pharmaceutical
industry), and this year's largest big spender, the shadowy web that
includes crypto traders (including sports betting and prediction
markets).
"In
the 2026 midterm elections, corporate money is poised to play a bigger
role than ever before in influencing how Americans vote. The
cryptocurrency sector's political playbook from 2024 – prioritizing
corporate priorities over parties or candidates and using their
financial power to discipline sitting lawmakers and candidates – is
spawning copycat corporate campaigns by other sectors.
"Months
before Election Day, corporations have already collectively spent $517
million to influence federal elections – a 12% increase over the $461
million that corporations spent over the entire 2024 election cycle and nearly triple the $184.1 million spent by corporations during the previous midterm election in 2022."
Most
of this money is "dark" money. Secret funds that are spent directly by
Political Action Funds in support of candidates. In June, one of those
groups, North Star Dawn, used a "deep fake" ad to attack Flanagan.
(Portraying her as a corporate shill. Cute. The evidence is a PAC for
Democratic Lt. Governors. But the thing is, why is Peggy Flanagan on the
other side of just about every issue that's mentioned in the attack ad?)
[...]
Last, a HuffPo item giving nationwide coverage to the big bucks for Craig. Carried by MSN.
Since it's largely cumulative, quoting will be brief:
Outside
groups have spent more than $1 million a week on TV and digital
streaming ads to support Craig, she said on a Wednesday press call. Eight
of these ads have been airing since April, and the campaign’s “best
guess” is that most of this money is flowing from the cryptocurrency
industry and the powerful pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee.
“Minnesota
has never seen this kind of outside spending,” said the lieutenant
governor. “Unprecedented. Historic. Unlike anything Minnesotans have
experienced in our politics before.”
Flanagan,
who is running to the left of Craig, has made it central to her
campaign that she doesn’t take any corporate PAC money, unlike the
moderate congresswoman.
On
her press call, she said the “most important question to ask” is why
special interest groups are flooding this Senate race: “They know Angie
Craig will do their bidding.”
Well, they "know" no such thing, but the expectation is that Craig would mirror her record in the House, if gaining the Senate seat. Again, Craig represented her district and how she'd represent the entire diverse state is unknown. But her campaign and the endorsements she could obtain are not progressive voices. Far from it.
The next following post is more editorial, looking past the contest (but only a bit) to the Schumer - Gillibrand putsch against Platner, in parallel to a comparable "me-too" takedown putsch the two spearheaded against Al Franken. And how that is part of a Dem inner party bias toward a too-conservative status quo. One ripe for overturning, if they'd let us.
Frankin was the best and most progressive Senator Minnesota has had since the still strange and most unfortunate Wellstone fatal airplane disaster.
Back to Frankin - not Wellstone: They took a crap on Al and he walked away, which is most unfortunate, but illustrative of why change is imperative.
Change course, and we could even possibly get Medicare for All.
The Crabgrass understanding -- Craig's not endorsed Medicare for All, while Flanagan unequivocally has.
_____________UPDATE_____________
Recall, chickenshit dark money took out Jamal Bowman and Corrie Bush, so August primary day is a pace away and we have to wait to see. But chickenshit dark money, in an ideal world, would not rule the primary day voting in an ideal Minnesota world.
