https://minnesotareformer.com/2026/09/29/minnesota-republican-ag-candidates-stock-portfolio-presents-174-potential-conflicts-of-interest/
From all reporting Ron Schutz seems an honest man. But men with money at stake can shade decisions when the job is doing what's best in the public interests. For example, Schutz is heavily invested in Big Pharma, and Democratic Party policy, progressive version, says that is a bloc too invested in doing their Shareholders well, damn the public's suffering prices often twice that in US healthcate vs Europe which has the more progressive outlook.
From the item -
If Republican Ron Schutz wins the attorney general’s race in November, he will be responsible for enforcing Minnesota’s laws against the country’s biggest and most powerful corporations.
His own personal fortune is staked on many of them.
Schutz owns more than $10,000 of stock in 174 companies — at least $1.74 million altogether — according to his economic disclosure. His expansive investment holdings span industries that are often the subject of litigation like pharmaceuticals, banking and artificial intelligence and include at least six companies that are currently being sued by the state of Minnesota.
Ethics experts say his individual stock holdings present clear, cut-and-dried conflicts of interest that would make it impossible for him to carry out the duties of the office.
“He really needs to sell all that and buy mutual funds if he’s going to be attorney general,” said Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor and former chief ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush. “I hope he committed to doing that.”
Schutz has not committed to doing that and did not respond to a Reformer question asking if he would.
That says enough, and the item gets into more analysis of things. Most important, it links to the Schutz investment disclosure statement showing portfolio holdings. Later the item notes:
“I just can’t see another way that he would expect to act as attorney general without divestment,” said Danielle Caputo, senior legal counsel for ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center. “It’s such a clear and present conflict that it would call into question any actions he would take.”
Schutz, if elected, would decide how to proceed with cases Ellison is pursuing against Amazon for monopolistic practices that stifle competition; Uber for making it exceedingly difficult for customers to cancel subscriptions; and Exxon Mobil for deceiving the public about the causes and costs of climate change. Schutz owns more than $10,000 of stock in all of them, along with Apple, Alphabet and Pfizer, which are also defendants in suits brought by Minnesota and other states.
Schutz’s stake in BlackRock could also present a conflict of interest. The asset management giant recently took over the parent company of Minnesota Power, the utility provider for northeastern Minnesota, over Ellison’s objections. The Attorney General’s Office represents consumers in fights over rate increases proposed by utility companies.
Schutz’s portfolio includes corporations that have recently settled lawsuits with the state, and he would be responsible for monitoring for compliance: Eli Lilly, accused of charging exorbitant prices for insulin; Meta, over claims it made its apps addictive to children; and Shipt, accused of misclassifying workers. Schutz also owns stock in AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile, which settled an investigation two years ago over deceptive advertising with the state.
[...] Minnesota law only requires public officials to disclose and abstain, when possible, from work in which they have a conflict of interest. Minnesota rules of professional conduct for attorneys also state lawyers should not represent clients if there’s a risk their representation will be limited by a personal interest.
“A lawyer should not be involved in a lawsuit in which he’s on both sides, and he would be on both sides if he were suing a company of which he is a shareholder,” said Richard Briffault, a law professor at Columbia University and member of the New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics.
This is in addition to the generic Republican bias toward corporate operational latitude vs Democratic policy favoring vigilant regulation in the public interest (a/k/a riding herd on counterproductive greed). The DFL under Ellison as AG will ride herd at a greater level than generic GOP liking.
With Shutz, we can guess libertarian lax capitalism motivating office policy. Lax intervention against corporate misdeeds. Lax opposition to Trumpism. An anti-progressive Gestalt.
So, a double whammy against Schutz. Then, factor in Ellison's record of competent policing corporate overreach, including joinder in suits other State AG officials may bring, and Keith is the man.
Schutz is, however, the single credible candidate of the last three the GOP dredged up to oppose Ellison. He's no Doug Wardlow total-misdirected zealot nor akin to Schultz, the last GOP one, before Shutz.
The other two were a joke. Schutz is real, with a establishment lawfirm background, and has a war chest.
Ellison has a progressive history evidencing an outlook that way into the future. And Ellison has done an exceptional job, with budget constraints where priorities have to be set wisely in the office. Ellison is pro consumer, which matters, given Trump's cluster fuck economic priorities, crypto, tariff war, Big Oil, Elon and all.
BOTTOM LINE: A Republican AG beholden in any way to Trump is scary. Add a career of serving the interests of big corporation greed, sometimes in litigation against other corporate greed or overreaching, and big corporation investment holdings which can conflict with best public interest, and why abandon a situation which has functioned well for citizen consumers over years? It doesn't make sense.
Big corporations already have enough power as donors and behind the scene lobbying, so why give them the only protection the public has, to create a corporate trifecta against the public?
_______________UPDATE_____________
I am aware of puff pieces which extol the Schtz patent lawyering courtroom skill against corporate giant GE, in litigation over commercial relative advantage, but what's that got to do with bettering healthcare for paycheck to paycheck citizens without health insurance and with Trump indifference toward needs of the little guy? It is experience in a different world than the AG of a state is to serve. Seeing and serving dutifully the public interest each and every time is not at all akin to war in court over patents between conflicting firms, while holding a portfolio suggesting sympathy for the little guy might be overshadowed by sympathy for and loyalty to the portfolio, first and foremost. Schutz, at the least, has to first divest. Then the other career suitability for the actual task question can be considered.
FURTHER: Crabgrass sees it more likely Shutz could if elected turn out be a William Douglas and not a Pam Bondi (who as Florida AG declined to join the Trump University litigation after gaining a campaign contribution from Trump) or Todd Blanche (who cooked that outrage of a Trump v. IRS settlement hoax); but a patent litigator more attuned to patent claims meanings and reach in litigation over intellectual property gains or losses as a career space, is completely uncertain as to how an AG office would best be optimized, since that is different from optimizing a Robins, Kaplan budget space.
Ellison has been a defense lawyer activist, a member of the US House, and has a record of priority setting on an impecunious AG budget. He has been competent in each career space, and he has a sound record as the incumbent in the job. His priorities in office have been progressive, at each career stop.
Why risk a change? Why risk it as an independent question from whether Shutz divests or not, where if he keeps the portfolio intact he's, in the Crabgrass outlook, dead meat. If divesting, there is still a risk.
FURTHER: There is Ron Shutz and money; and then Ron Shutz viewed through the DFL lens. How readers should weigh those two separate factors is for them to decide.
FURTHER: Guardian notes US power shutoff rates climbing during a record hot July. Would Shutz better Ellison in reaction to such a situation? Is the question irrelevant in Minnesota, but a fact in 10 other states?
