Political contribution crisis for third parties

Lost in the larger conversation about GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s unallotment plan was what the Political Contribution Refund (PCR) program’s unallotment means for the next election cycle. Arguably — and I’ll argue it — the loss of that program may be the most significant factor in the 2010 governor’s race. Consider the last two gubernatorial races:

 

2002	Tim Pawlenty (R)	44.4%
	Roger Moe (DFL)	36.5%
	Tim Penny (I)	16.1%
	Ken Pentel (Green)	2.3%
2006	Tim Pawlenty (R)	46.7%
	Mike Hatch (DFL)	45.7%
	Peter Hutchinson (I)	6.4%

Penny and Hutchinson were two former Democrats who drew from the endorsed DFL candidates’ vote totals. If they weren’t on the ballot, these two elections would likely have gone to Moe and Hatch.

The Independence Party’s viability from the get-go has been its ability to use the political contribution refund program. Using the program is triggered when a party gets five percent of the vote in a general election. Jesse Ventura’s gubernatorial win in 1998 would never have been possible without IP’s seven percent in the 1996 U.S. Senate contest, which triggered the use of the refund program.

So, the press release from the IP about the PCR program’s unallotment — comparing its situation to the black knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail , fighting on with missing limbs — is no exaggeration. Writes IP Party Chair Jack Uldrich in a last ditch fundraising pitch before the PCR cut-off date of July 1:

On principle, the Independence Party of Minnesota has always agreed to fight its Republican and DFL opponents with one arm tied behind its back because of our refusal to accept special interest and lobbyist money, and now the Governor is slicing off our other arm by eliminating the PCR program which rebated donations on a dollar-for-dollar basis up to $50 for individuals (and $100 per couple). Like the noble Black Knight, though, the Independence Party will proceed on its noble quest. As the only political party truly dedicated to fiscal responsibility, I am of the opinion that during these difficult economics it is only fair that political parties and candidates share in the burden of balancing the state budget. As such, I have no qualms with Pawlenty’s decision.

Uldrich tells PIM that it’s a disappointment for the Independence Party to lose PCR, which helped level the playing field slightly: "We feel there’s too much special interest money in politics," Uldrich says, which helped lead to the failure to compromise at the Legislature this year. He points out many DFL and GOP candidates rely on PCR to help avoid taking special interest money, and it especially benefited the IP because they don’t take PAC money.

Some interesting stats. In 2006, Hutchinson got 839 rebated contributions, for a total of $58,788, more than double the number taken by the DFL downticket campaigns of Lori Swanson, Mark Ritchie and Rebecca Otto. (Mike Hatch collected 5,180 contributions, for just over a quarter-million dollars). Minor parties counted upon PCR rebates, as well, from a few hundred contributors a year. In the off-year of 2007, Green Party units collected $17,132 and IP units collected $13,172. (In 2006, IP units collected $14,495.)

No Responses to “Political contribution crisis for third parties”

1. Anonymous Says:
   June 22nd, 2009 at 3:53 pm

   Uldrich is right that the PCR program was a significant step decreasing the influence of political action committees in Minnesota.

   The PCR program is the only thing to prevent incumbents from abusing their positions of decisionmaking power to obtain large numbers of PAC contributions. PIM pointed out that Republicans gained more than double the PCR money of Democrats, but they didn’t explain a major reason why. Challengers need to resort to pushing PCRs more than incumbents and most Republicans are challengers when running for the Minnesota legislature. So, Pawlenty just dealt a major blow to any candidate looking to unseat a sitting legislator, not just political independents. He effectively cut in half the cost of buying a legislator, since challengers will have less access to money and each dollar will have double the effect in maintaining incumbency.