. . . Heading into conference committee, the Senate reached a deal to
require frac sand operators to get a permit from the state Department of
Natural Resources if the mine is within 1 mile of a trout stream. The
permit approach was a compromise from an earlier proposal by Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing, to prohibit silica sand mining within 1 mile of a trout stream.
“I don’t want to say I’m 100 percent satisfied, but I think this
gives us a lot of tools to make a difference in southeastern Minnesota,”
Schmit said. “The trout stream setback language we agreed to earlier
this week is going to make a big difference in protecting the most
sensitive regions in southeastern Minnesota.”
The bill makes lays the groundwork for establishing protections for more than just trout streams. Rep. Rick Hansen,
DFL-South St. Paul, contended the trout stream issue was too narrow of a
focus. He successfully pushed for the establishment of a model
ordinance for local governments that looks at setbacks for things like
wellhead protection areas in addition to trout streams. The standards
also call for air and water quality protections for frac sand that’s in
temporary storage.
The breadth of conference report, Hansen said, goes farther than any other state that has faced frac sand mining controversies.
“It’s the first of its kind, to our knowledge, in the country for
silica sand. It’s comprehensive so we’ve got air, water—the whole
picture,” Hansen said. . . .
Shaw reports that the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) will be leading the effort across agencies to set the standards and to provide technical assistance to local government. It's something, since the industrial sand mining special interests and hostile legislators repeatedly tried to cut out the EBQ from the mix.
Meanwhile, the state Chamber of Commerce's lobbyist whined to Shaw that the industry is unfairly singled out for its water use. Orchards use water, he noted, and they're not being asked to apply for water permits.
Bluestem agrees: the next apple orchard that strips off hundreds of acres of soil, digs a ginormous hole in the earth that's open for years, and washes sand should so be required to apply for a permit with the DNR. Fair is fair.
So what's missing in Shaw's report? The name of Senator Jeremy Miller (R-Winona). In Miller's misleading frac sand statement, a letter published in the Sunday Winona Daily News, local activist Jane Cowgill writes:
I couldn’t believe it when I read Sen. Miller’s statement trying to take credit for the frac sand legislation that passed on Monday. Getting out a press release taking credit for something he had nothing to do with is almost the only initiative he has taken on the frac sand issue.
. . . Miller was the key vote in committee killing the state standards proposed by Sen. Matt Schmit of Red Wing and Trout Unlimited, and endorsed by the DNR. These standards were the result of work with experts and would have put the most sensitive areas of southeast Minnesota -- those near trout streams -- off limits to frac sand mines.
The provisions that did pass are not everything we wanted, but some will be very helpful. Again we have Matt Schmit of Red Wing to thank for this. Schmit worked all session and moved bills forward even when some leaders of his own party disagreed with him. That’s because he was representing and fighting for his district. I can’t say that about Miller. He carried water for the frac sand special interests all session. Now he wants us to think that he actually cared about what his constituents wanted.
We aren’t fooled.
It will be interested to see whether the impressive grassroots organizing by citizens in Southeastern Minnesota will carry forward into electoral politics. Neither party will be able to leverage it, given the way the DFLers on the Range rushed in to prattle about the frac sand mining industry creating "empathy" for their region. Schmit's a clear winner in his first term.
Photo: Jane Cowgill at the state capitol, promoting protection for trout stream and other living things. Photo by John Kaul.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
An frac sand industry-friendly compromise has been reached in the Minnesota legislature over mining near trout streams. Meanwhile, a new report commissioned and published by the Wisconsin Farmers Union, the Wisconsin Towns Association and the Minneapolis-based IATP suggests that industrial sand mining falls short as an engine of job creation.
The lawmaker who has pushed this year for tougher state regulation of
the frac sand mining industry said DFL legislative leaders have reached
a compromise on the legislation.
Lawmakers agreed Tuesday to create a
new Department of Natural Resources permit for companies hoping to mine
silica sand in certain sensitive areas in southeastern Minnesota, said
Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing. Schmit said the regulations will be part
of the spending bill that covers natural resources, the environment and
agriculture.
Schmit and DNR Commissioner Tom
Landwehr had been pushing to prohibit sand mining within one mile of a
trout stream or spring in the "Paleozoic Plateau Ecological Section" of
the state, which includes Dakota, Goodhue, Houston, Fillmore, Olmsted,
Wabasha and Winona counties. The compromise expected to gain conference
committee approval would instead require a hydrological study and DNR
permit for any mine within a mile of a trout stream but not springs,
Schmit said.
"What this gives us is stricter
scrutiny in the most sensitive regions of southeastern Minnesota,"
Schmit said. "If that study proves that mining will have no or limited
impact on our waters, then we can move forward with the DNR permit, so I
think this is a good compromise. I do think it gives notice that the
areas around our trout streams are going to be watched very closely and
creates an incentive for mining to take place elsewhere.". ..
In a retreat from tough language that would have put much of
southeastern Minnesota off limits to frac sand mining, state officials
have reached a compromise that will allow mines near the region’s trout
streams, but only if companies follow new permitting rules.
As part of a deal announced Tuesday, Sen. Matt Schmit,
DFL-Red Wing, said he’ll drop his effort to ban frac sand mining within a
mile of any trout stream in the southeast corner of the state. The ban
was embraced by Gov. Mark Dayton until a compromise emerged at a recent
meeting with Schmit, industry lobbyists, three state agency heads and
organized labor.
If the deal goes as expected, the 2013 legislative
session will end without sweeping statewide environmental protections
sought by a throng of “fractivists” from areas around Red Wing, Wabasha,
Winona and other parts of the bluff country known as Minnesota’s
Paleozoic Plateau. . . .
New report challenges industry gospel on job creation
Those cheerleading the strip mining of Minnesota's Bluff Country carry on about jobs, usually citing figures promotedby the Heartland Institute, but those projections have their critics. Yesterday, the WFU and other organizations released a new report about the economics of Wisconsin's industrial sand mining.
The study, conducted by Thomas
Power, a retired University of Montana economist and an expert on the
economics of mining, concluded that the economic effects of silica sand
production used in mining is likely to be quite small.
Drawing from data collected by the
federal government and the state of Wisconsin, production could create
about 2,300 jobs, but that's less than one percent of total employment
statewide. The frac sand region creates about the same number of jobs in
all categories every two months, Power said.
Power cites the following as reasons
for mining's poor performance in creating healthy economies:
• Fluctuations in demand
• Increasing mechanization
• Mines depleted more quickly
• Workers commute long distances, families live elsewhere
• Small local economies can't supply mines
• Impacts on the environment make the region a less attractive place to live and visit
• Can discourage other businesses by paying high wages and degrading the environment
Photo: Citizens seeking legislative relief for themselves and trout were disappointed by a compromise with weak protections for trout and other living things.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Once upon a time--in mid-April--Minnesota state senator Scott Newman (R-Hutchinson) stood in the presence of his district's representatives at a town hall and declared to voters in the small-town cafe:
Sen. Scott Newman thinks it will be a long shot for either a bill
legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions to come to the Senate floor
for a vote this year.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, he said,
may be a DFLer but he’s an Iron Ranger who hails from a fiscally liberal
yet socially conservative district. “In the Senate, they’d have to get
past (Bakk) and I doubt they can do it.”
Today, Wednesday, May 8, 2103, Senate comm staffer Amos Briggs sent an email with this subject head: "Advisory: Senate Vote on Marriage Equality Bill." Contents:
Should the Minnesota House of Representatives vote to pass HF 1054, the marriage equality bill, on Thursday, May 9th, the Minnesota Senate will plan to schedule the bill for a floor vote on Monday, May 13th, with session likely to convene at 11:00 a.m.
The Senate will not be in session on Saturday, May 11th, as several members will be attending a funeral for Sen. Ruud's mother. . . .
At least one Twin Cities blogger called Minnesota For Marriage (M4M) divisive rural-vs-metro a sound strategy based on Newman's remarks. Guess both of them forgot to ask Bakk about it.
Nor did the M4M tour appear to have achieved its end--instead, rural DFL legislators began to declare their intentions to vote yes.
FitzSimmons' amendment: clarification, not compromise
Conservative Wright County Republican freshman representative David FitzSimmons (Albertville) has offered an elegant amendment that clarifies the Clark bill, removing the muddle of debate over civil unions and marriage. It may possibly also banish fears that religious groups that acknowledge only straight marriage will at some point be forced to marry queer folk within their walls.
A13-0619 inserts "civil marriage" where "marriage" is now in state law and the Clark bill.
Simple. Respectful. A clarification that supports religious freedom, but not a compromise of the essential equality of the claim to marriage of all committed couples.
Reporters are tweeting that Minnesotans United for All Families executive director Richard Carlbom agrees with the amendment:
Richard Carlbom of MNU supports GOP's Fitzsimmons amendment to use "civil marriage" in all MN law. Could net GOP votes? #gaymarriage
In advance of the historic vote in the Minnesota House of
Representatives on extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples,
Representative David FitzSimmons, (R – Albertville) today introduced an
amendment to House File 1054 that would insert the word “civil” in front
of marriage in Minnesota state statute.
Minnesotans United Campaign Manager Richard Carlbom released the following statement in response to this development:
“Minnesotans United supports this amendment, and we will encourage
the members of the Minnesota House of Representatives to support it as
well. Representative FitzSimmons’ amendment affirms the fact that
Minnesotans want same-sex couples to have the freedom to marry in our
state while also ensuring that clergy members and religious institutions
are free to practice their beliefs free from government intrusion. We
applaud Representative FitzSimmons for introducing this amendment, and
we are hopeful that it will bring even more bipartisan support to House
File 1054.”
It's unfortunate that while FitzSimmons can see the merit making the amendment but not declare support the bill as a whole. Update: Along with fellow Republicans Pat Garofalo, Andrea Kieffer and Jenifer Loon, FitzSimmons voted yes.
Representative tweets from the media:
Fitzsimmons wouldn't comment as to whether he'll vote for the final bill if his amendment isn't included.
Honour’s campaign released an e-mail Tuesday afternoon announcing 12
people or their firms are working for him in positions ranging from
field work to polling. . . .
Wesley Donehue, digital. Donehue is the CEO of Push Digital based in Columbia, S.C.
Digital-communication duties will be handled by Push Digital.
Will Push Digital supply these services for Brand Management and Social Media? From the Push Digital website:
In many cases, people are already talking about you. Some comments are positive, while others are negative. Using new search tools, we monitor websites and social networks for activity about you. We leave blog comments, tweets and Facebook messages to respond. If the messages are positive, we begin a dialogue with the user in an attempt to recruit him/her as an activist. If the messages are negative, we push back with the truth.
In short, paid trolls.
Outsourcing the Honour troll ops to South Carolina isn't the smartest move. (We'll leave the speculation about how South Carolina rewards stalking to the smart people).
Taking a little time from our spring planting, Bluestem will do a little free concern trolling for the aspiring investment banker's grand ambition.
Invest that money in Minnesota's local troll community. Surely some of the fine folks here could use the coin and you'd help the economy of the state you adopted several years ago and you could truly say: "all your base are belong to us."
Given the trend of rural Democratic house members announcing their support (or leaning toward support) of state representative Karen Clark's freedom to marry legislation, Bluestem was overjoyed but not surprised to receive statements from the Minnesota House and Minnesotans United for All Families that HF1054 would be scheduled for a floor vote on Thursday.
The note from the House was straightforward:
This morning the Minnesota House Rules committee will meet to calendar HF 1054, the marriage equality bill, for a House floor vote on Thursday, May 9th.
The House floor session will begin today at 9:00 a.m. and is expected to recess shortly after. The House Rules committee will begin 5 to 10 minutes after the recess, at approximately 9:30 a.m in State Capitol Room 118.
Minnesotans United for All Families was more exuberant:
Today, the Minnesota House of Representatives announced that HF1054, a bill to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples while strongly protecting religious freedoms in our state, will receive a vote on the House floor on Thursday, May 9.
House leadership has repeatedly said that HF1054 would not come before the House floor until the necessary 68 votes to pass it were secured. Today’s announcement signals that those votes have been secured and that the freedom to marry legislation will pass and move to the Senate floor for a final vote.
“Thursday’s vote in the Minnesota House of Representatives will be a historic victory for thousands of same-sex couples and families in our state,” said Minnesotans United Campaign Manager Richard Carlbom. “We are confident that the necessary votes to extend the freedom to marry for same-sex couples have been secured and that HF1054 will pass the House floor. The Minnesota House of Representatives is now poised to make Minnesota the next state to grant civil marriage to same-sex couples and their families by affirming what we already know to be true: Marriage is about the love, commitment, and responsibility that two people share, and it is a basic freedom that should no longer be denied to some simply because of who they are.”(emphasis added)
The Minnesota House has scheduled a Thursday debate and floor vote on the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.
House
DFL leadership announced the plans Tuesday. House Speaker Paul Thissen
has previously said that scheduling the vote would be a signal that DFL
leaders secured the 68 votes needed to pass the bill.
The Dibble bill to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota faces one more step before the full Senate can vote on it. The Senate Finance Committee this morning considers a whether it will be worth $678,000 a year in addtional costs to the state.
Watch the Senate Finance Committee archival footage here at The Uptake:
Contact your representative and senator to ask them to vote yes on extending the right to marry to loving same-sex couples.
Image: The happy new image from MN United for All Families.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Marquart, who has remained uncommitted about how he stands on the bill, may have to vote today to move or table the bill (one supposes that he could also abstain, though that seems cowardly, indeed). He's not the only undeclared DFLer on the committee--there are also Jeanne Poppe (DFL-Austin) and Gene Pelowski (DFL-Winona). Like Marquart, Poppe represents a district where citizens voted for the amendment to restrict the right to marriage to heterosexual couples.
Bluestem hopes Pelowski will remember that vote, while listening to more recent voices being raised in support for the freedom to marry.
Two op-ed piece in the Winona Daily News suggest that that support is wide and deep. In a group column in Monday's Winona Daily News, WSU students call for Freedom to Marry, addressing both Pelowski and Senator Jeremy Miller (R-Winona). They write in part:
. . .Last year, we gained firsthand experience and saw the impact of our
collective efforts materialize in the defeat of the "marriage"
amendment. We turned out to vote in record numbers, because an issue
important to our generation was at stake. According to a recent ABC
News/Washington Post poll, while 58 percent of Americans support
same-sex marriage, 81 percent of people under 30 support it. Young
people propelled the victory. We helped defeat the amendment.
This
year, we ask our legislature to pass the freedom to marry for all
families. It's the right thing to do. It's also the best thing to do for
our campus and our community.
As student leaders, we work hard to
represent all students and help every student succeed. Students
entering college need to feel like they have a place in our community.
When we restrict the freedom to marry from every student, it damages our
collective community and our learning environment.
As students,
we entrust the school to find the best teachers, professors, mentors,
and staff. As ten other states now have the freedom to marry, we must
join them to ensure that no applicant overlooks WSU for another location
because of a law on our books.
Lastly, as we ourselves graduate
and look for jobs, we want to live and work in states that have the
freedom to marry for everyone. If Iowa has this and Illinois is expected
to pass the freedom to marry soon, Minnesota must not fall behind.
Senator
Miller and Representative Pelowski, thank you for your hard work,
dedication, and support of Winona State University. We ask you to keep
it up and support the freedom to marry this year.
The column is signed by 30 student leaders, including the president, vice-president, vice president-elect, treasurer and treasurer-elect of the student senate.
The students aren't alone in their call for support for the Dibble/Clark bills in the Senate and House. In Local businesses back Freedom to Marry, ten business owners outlined the pro-business case for marriage equality:
n
Discrimination is bad for business. A welcoming state is essential to
recruiting and retaining the best young talent. Minnesota employers have
known this for years. Minnesota's largest and most successful companies
have been the nation's leaders in creating diverse workplaces and
extending family benefits to domestic partners. This leadership has made
our community a strong magnet for attracting and retaining the nation's
top talent - not just gay and lesbian professionals, but today's
educated young workers who increasingly say that living in welcoming
communities is important.
n Uncertainty undermines business
planning. Uncertainty is inefficient and expensive. Consider the
challenges of our multi-state and multi-national employers who
increasingly will have to sort out a patchwork of state and federal laws
affecting marriage. Yes, even if the Minnesota Legislature grants
marriage equality this year, laws won't be uniform across the country.
But action this year gives Minnesota businesses the opportunity to start
planning for the equality that is certain to come.
n Marriage
inequality makes some of our employees second-class citizens. Turnover
and a loss of productivity are two of the consequences that come when
some employees are denied rights that most of us take for granted,
including family issues and end-of-life decisions among many others.
Workplace policies aren't a replacement for equal rights under the law.
Marriage
equality is not on the legislative agenda simply because Minnesota
voters soundly defeated the constitutional amendment which sought to
limit the definition of marriage in November. That vote may have
accelerated legislative consideration of the issue, but it would have
arrived at the Capitol sooner rather than later with or without last
fall's vote. This choice is before you now because it is the right thing
to do, for our employees and their families, for our companies'
business success and for the economic prosperity of all Minnesotans.
We
urge the legislature to reaffirm Minnesota's leadership in equality and
economic opportunity by passing legislation in 2013 that ensures gay
and lesbian Minnesotans, at long last, have the freedom to marry the
person they love.
What case are opponents to the freedom to marry making? On today's op-ed page, Monday, May 6, there's one letter opposing marriage equality, Shameful lusts. Bluestem is saddened that the writer is unable to understand how love is love. We know our own circles would be improvished if the loving partnerships of our gay and lesbian friends were to vanish from our life.
Photo: 28A Representative Gene Pelowski (DFL-Winona). Is he listening to and reading what his constituents are saying about the freedom to marry? His constituents who want to contact him about the bill before the Ways and Means committee reconvenes can find contact information here: Gene Pelowski Jr. 28A
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Late yesterday afternoon, the Minnesota House Majority comm department notified media that HF1054, state representative Karen Clark's marriage equality bill, would be heard Monday, May 6, by the Ways and Means Committee.
The Minnesota House has scheduled another committee hearing for a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota.
The House Ways and Means Committee has scheduled a Monday hearing for
the bill after a fiscal analysis found legalizing same-sex marriage
would cost the state money.
Minnesota Management and Budget predicts that legalizing same-sex
marriage would result in 114 more people enrolling for state benefits
for their married partners. Fiscal agents estimate the added benefits
would cost $688,378 a year.
The fiscal note also projected that 5,186 same-sex couples would get
married over the next two years if same-sex marriage were legalized in
Minnesota on August 1. The estimate found that couples paying the $90
marriage licenses would generate roughly $190,135 to the state's general
fund and another $146,930 to other special revenue funds.
Although there's little time to contact these committee members, their contact information is at the links below (be polite in email and phone calls; we'd recommend polite emails sent today, since no one is working today to answer the phones at the Capitol):
Several suburban Republicans whose districts voted against the amendment serve on the Ways and Means Committee as well. Although no member of the minority caucus in the Minnesota House has come out to support marriage equality, those from districts that turned down the amendment might be reminded of the choice voters made in November.
Again, time is short, but those who wish to contact them can find info at the link under each member's name; be polite in emails and phone calls.
McNamara (Hastings) is a co-author of HF1687, the first civil unions bill submitted by Rep. Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing). Unlike Kim Norton--whose name is stricken on the first iteration and a co-author of HF1805--McNamara didn't sign on Kelly's replacement "civil unions for everybody" bill that was offered days after the first bill reserved marriage for straight couples, while allowing both straight and gay/lesbians to enter into legally recognized civil unions.
The first bill was criticized for creating "separate but equal" arrangments for gay or lesbian couples who want to marry. Kelly responded with a bill that would "take government out of marriage."
Photo: Will the gay heirs of Paul Bunyan's legacy be able to marry in Minnesota soon?
56-year old Larry Duncan and 48-year old Randy Shepherd receive their marriage license in Washington State in December.
Photograph by Meryl Shenker.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
A Democrat who was on the fence as to whether to support a bill that
would legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota says he will vote for the
bill.
Rep. Joe Radinovich, DFL-Crosby, said today that if the bill comes up he's on board.
"To further deny equal rights to all people would be a black eye on this institution and certainly on my own career," he said. . . .
Radinovich acknowledged that his stance on the bill would upset some
of his constituents, including some of his family members. But he said
he believes that a majority of younger voters support same-sex marriage,
and that the trend is that same-sex marriage will be legal soon.
"I'd rather have the voters be upset with me right now than me to be
upset with myself for the rest of my life," Radinovich said.
Ironically, Radinovich is M4M's (Minnesota for Marriage) Legislator of the Day:
#MNleg LEGISLATOR OF THE DAY: Joe Radinovich (DFL-10B) undecided but constituents want #1m1w--tell him vote NO today! bit.ly/107rZKT
In November 2012, sixty-two percent of the voters in Radinovich's district in Aitkin and
Crow Wing County district voted to for the amendment to restrict the freedom to marry. The amendment lost statewide.
Radinovich is scheduled to appear on TPT's Almanac tonight, where the announcement is sure to come up.
Is the heart of rural Minnesota thawing on marriage equality?
Recent developments suggest that the tide is changing for the bill. A new poll by KSTP/SurveyUSA revealed a Dramatic Shift On Gay Marriage Issue:
Votes to legalize gay marriage are likely to happen in the Minnesota
House and Senate next month. With those votes looming, our latest KSTP/SurveyUSA poll shows for the first time a majority of Minnesotans favor changing the law that bans same-sex marriage.
In our poll,
we asked 500 Minnesotans across the state if "the Minnesota state law
that defines marriage as between one man and one woman be changed to
allow same-sex couples to marry?"
The poll
indicates that 51% of Minnesotans favor the idea while 47% are opposed
to changing the law. Only two percent aren't sure. Just over two months
ago, in early February, only 42% of Minnesotans favored changing the
law and 54% were opposed.
Pausing over breakfast at Don's Cafe in Morris, 20-year-old University of Minnesota student Taylor Barker shares his passion for the spirit of rural community that the moderate independent student discovered while attending the liberal arts college in Stevens County.
"I like the small-town atmosphere and values here," Barker said, after noting that he'd grown up in Fridley. "My grandparents are from small towns in Renville and Isanti Counties. I feel like people can sit down and discuss issues over a cup of coffee at cafes like Don's. It's like the way my grandparents talk things over coffee at their kitchen tables with neighbors."
Barker's been drinking decaf while he talks about his development as a straight ally for the freedom to marry. Five years ago, Barker recalls, if he'd heard a news report about derogatory anti-gay slurs, he'd have said, "Attaboy!"
This changed when he got involved in high school theater productions and speech in his sophomore year of high school. "My high school theater program director and speech coach--and later mentor--was gay," he said. "I got to know him and his partner . . .and I realized how stupid homophobia is."
As Barker got to know more gay men and lesbians, he came to believe that all people should be enjoy the freedom to marry the person they love. This realization fit well with Barker's belief in individual liberty and limited government.
Indeed, Barker considered himself a Republican until the 2012 election, when he thought that political purity--"candidates competing to see who is 'more conservative'" -- and religious dogma became more important than the ability to consider individual rights and liberties. Like many young voters, he's turned off by the social conservatism of Republican platform positions that don't acknowledge the full citizenship of all Americans.
During the 2012 campaign season, Barker spoke out against the amendment to restrict the right to marry.
Although raised in the suburbs, Barker hopes to remain in Greater Minnesota and work in community-based radio. "Local people decide what the schedule and content are in community-based radio," he observed, pointing to the member stations in AMPERS.
Whether in politics or professional ambitions, Barker said he's drawn to a sense of community that values all people. "I keep coming back to this: we think getting to know people is important in Greater Minnesota," he said. "Our values of being a good citizen, part of a community--once you get beyond stereotypes, it's clear that same-sex couples are like their neighbors and only to marry the person they love."
Barker had to dash off to introduce students to the little campus on the prairie, in a town which banded together to help elected Jay McNamar while rejecting the amendment by 58.37 percent of the ballots cast.
Photo: Taylor Barker in the studios of KUMM-FM.
This original story is underwritten by a sponsorship by Minnesotans United for All Families. For earlier posts in the series, click on the related articles below.
In St. Paul, the state legislature's picking sand mining lobbyists over trout, while back in greater Minnesota, conflict continues to flare as citizens scrutinize the industry.
Despite a series of political defeats, a Red Wing lawmaker vows to keep fighting for legislation to protect trout streams from silica sand mining.
Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing, said he will keep pushing to prohibit silica sand mining within a mile of trout streams, springs and fens in southeastern Minnesota.
"Hopefully, people realize that we are not asking for the world here. All we're asking for is to be proactive and to give our agencies the tools they need to do their job and give our local decision makers the assurance that we are getting this right," he said.
But the first-term senator faces a tough fight. Republicans and Iron Range Democrats have teamed up to defeat the proposal. Last week, the measure was stripped out of the Senate's game and fish bill. On Tuesday, an attempt by Schmit put the regulations back into the bill failed by one vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
Sen. Jeremy Miller, R-Winona, was among those voting against the trout stream language. He said he wants to protect trout streams but believes other legislation will address the issue by helping set model standards and making agency experts available to help local governments. Local officials he talked to said Schmit's proposal goes too far and would amount to a de facto moratorium on mining in Fillmore and Houston counties.
"That would eliminate just about any opportunity for industrial sand mining in those two counties," he said. . . .
Twin Cities bicyclists will be among those gathering at an event tonight to raise concerns about frac sand mining.
Several silica sand mines close to
the Mississippi River in western Wisconsin are near areas where cyclists
like to ride and stay in bed-and-breakfasts. Some of the proposed mines
in southeastern Minnesota are also located in scenic areas where
cycling is popular. . .
"Bicyclists care about frac sand
mining for the same reasons that I've heard a lot of southeast Minnesota
residents testify at the State Capitol, and that's health, safety and
scenery," [Tracy] Sides said. "Degraded scenery undermines the cycling and
tourism. I've visited mining locations in Wisconsin, and industrial frac
sand mines look like open sores on the land."
Sides said increased truck traffic
from sand mining threatens a resource on both sides of the river. . . .
Can the pristine St. Croix River experience and the silica sand mining operations expected to proliferate near the riverway, co-exist? As industrial silica sand mining expands in this region, that’s ripe with geologic formations that support silica sand deposits; will local officials be prepared for this vastly more intensive form of mining?
Leaders from towns and counties all along the Wisconsin-Minnesota border and in the St. Croix watershed came together last weekend to learn about what’s being done to regulate silica or “frac sand” mining. Some who have been involved in this issue for several years came to share their personal experiences with this industry. The conference was hosted by the St. Croix River Scenic Byway, and River Coalition and was held in St. Croix Falls’ Public Library. Frac sand or silica sand mining is causing concerns for local zoning authorities, public health officials and for citizens suddenly finding their farms, homes or cabins on the edge of a sand mine. . .
Residents in Winona County have asked the Minnesota Court of Appeals
to reverse a decision that would allow a proposed frac sand mine to move
forward without an in-depth environmental review.
The Winona County board voted last
month that the proposed Nisbit frac sand mine in Saratoga Township does
not need to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
But 12 residents backed by the Land Stewardship Project say the county
failed to address concerns about the mine's potential impact. They say
the county needs to take into account the potential cumulative effect of
several mines opening nearby. . . .
Here's the Land Stewardship Project press release:
The Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture conference committee meets at 1:00 p.m., and Bluestem hopes that the House conferees--Jean Wagenius, David Dill, Jeanne Poppe, Rick Hansen, and Andrew Falk--can prevail on keeping $190,000 for the Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program in the final conference report.
Competitive grants for up to $25,000 are awarded to individuals or
groups for on-farm sustainable agriculture research or demonstration
projects in Minnesota. The purpose of the Grant Program is to fund
practices that promote environmental stewardship and conservation of
resources as well as improve profitability and quality of life on farms
and in rural areas. . . .
Eligible recipients include Minnesota farmers, individuals at Minnesota
educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and local natural
resource agencies. Priority is given to projects that are farmer
initiated. All non-farmer initiated projects must show significant
collaboration with farmers. . . .
The program objectives are to research and demonstrate the
profitability, energy efficiency, and benefits of sustainable
agriculture practices and systems from production through marketing.
Grants are available to fund on-farm research and demonstrations and may include, but are not limited to:
enterprise diversification and organic production using traditional and non-traditional crops and livestock;
cover crops and crop rotations to increase nitrogen uptake, reduce erosion, or control pests;
conservation tillage and weed management;
cropping systems to implement integrated pest management systems for insects, weeds, and diseases;
nutrient and pesticide management including prevention of entry into water bodies;
energy production such as wind, methane, or biomass.
The program does not fund projects that duplicate previously funded projects. . . .
It's not a big program, but one that's useful for farmers, especially those in fast-growing sectors like community supported agriculture (CSA). It's not as if traditional production agriculture is starved in either chamber's bill, so the omission of the program in the Senate bill seems a casual error that can be easily corrected.
Here's the Land Stewardship Project's position on the project (via LSP's lobbyist Bobby King:
Funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program. LSP
supports the House position that provides $190,000/ year funding for
this program. (HF 976 lines 6.7 – 6.20) There is no dedicated funding
in the Senate position.
Here's the House staff comparison and contrast chart. Perhaps the greater problem with the Senate bill is the absence of funding for the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Program, which would be developed by the Minnesota Department of Ag and a board composed mostly of farmers and local soil and water commissioners. Oddly, Republicans have objected that farmers would not have a voice in establishing the program's policies. The program is a priority of the Minnesota Farmers Union.
With the suspension of the sustainable food production diploma program at M State-Fergus Falls, a peculiar hostility to toward small-scale, innovative agriculture seems to be gaining steam among some state lawmakers and bureaucrats. This is unfortunate, as the local food movement has been a boon for small business and job creation for those who seek to serve consumer demand.
Update: Those who support fostering our state's sustainable farming sector might consider contact the senators on the conference committee to ask them to agree with the House bill and fund this modest program. Be polite to the legislative aides who answer the phones and listen to the voicemail messages.
David Tomassoni: 651-296-8017
Tom Saxhaug: 651-296-4136
Dan Sparks: 651-296-9248
Jim Metzen: 651-296-4370
Torrey Westrom: 651-296-3826
Photo: Sexy buffer strips, via MnDA.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
One of our favorite poems is Wendell Berry's "The Peace of Wild Things." A lifelong Baptist, man of letters, academic, cultural and economic critic, and farmer, Berry has been a strong moral voice for traditional agrarian values and the environment for many years.
Thursday's Winona Daily News includes a letter from Berry to John Heid, Right and wrong:
The following letter was written by Wendell Berry, author, farmer and environmentalist, to John Heid (formerly of Winona), in support of the Catholic Worker campaign against frac sand mining.
Dear John,
You have offered me the privilege of joining by letter with you and your friends in Winona in opposition to "frac sand mining." and I am happy to accept.
I will say, first, that there is never, for any reason, a justification for doing long-term or permanent damage to the ecosphere. We did not create the world, we do not own it, and we have no right to destroy any part of it.
Second, most of our politicians and their corporate employers are measuring their work by the standards of profitability and mechanical efficiency. Those standards are wrong. There is one standard that is right: the health of living creatures and the living earth.
Third, we must give our need to eat, drink, and breathe and absolute precedence over our need for mined fuels.
I wish you well.
Sincerely,
Wendell Berry
It's not likely this will discourage those looking to loot a piece of wild things, but the gesture may give grassroots activists courage.
Hours after meeting with Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-CD6), Minnesota Latino immigrants remain hopeful, but cautious.
While grateful for an opportunity to discuss the issue of immigration reform with Representative Bachmann, members of organization La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles were disappointed that Representative Bachmann had opened up the meeting to an out-of-state congressperson whose comments in the meeting were inappropriate. While Representative Bachmann may believe that others are experts at the topic at hand, La Asamblea members believe that Representative Bachmann should be an expert in attempting to understand the experiences of her constituents.
However, La Asamblea members do applaud Representative Bachmann for agreeing to continue listening to stories and constituent perspectives regarding immigration reform. . .
The press release went on to praise the tone of the meeting:
"The meeting had a very positive tone of building bridges between the Latino community and Mrs. Bachmann. At the meeting, we had the impression that freedom for many immigrants is closer and we made it clear to her that the Latinos have a growing voting muscle in politics that we are ready to use," said Pablo Tapia, La Asamblea organizer.
Bluestem has learned that the other member of Congress was Alabama representative Mo Brooks, who serves his state's fifth congressional district on the Tennessee border.
Update: Bluestem's original post was not clear about the logistics of the meeting, which took place in Minnesota with Bachmann and one of her Washington staff members. Brooks joined the meeting via speaker phone. [end update]
Brooks 2011 statement: "I will doing anything short of shooting" undocumented workers
"As your congressman on the House floor, I will do anything short of
shooting them," Brooks said. "Anything that is lawful, it needs to be
done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American
citizens."
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, (D-Texas) head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, blasted Brooks remarks.
"Rhetoric referencing acts of violence has no place in the
discussion for realistic solutions to our country's immigration
problems," Gonzalez said. "Words have consequences"
Brooks 2.0: Gentler anti-immigrant rhetoric in 2013
We don't know yet what "inappropriate" comments Brooks made in the recent meeting, but he's one of a handful of congress people who have been critical of current bipartisan efforts to move comprehensive immigration reform.
His rhetoric does seem to have mellowed in the last two years.
After the media reported that an immigration deal among the Senate’s Gang of Eight was imminent, a number of conservatives in the House told their leadership on Wednesday that they didn’t want to get steamrolled by the upper chamber.
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) told The Hill, “We probably won’t know anything until a bill is drafted and presented.
“Keep in mind, it’s just eight people. It’s not sanctioned by anybody,” he noted, adding “it’s going to be very difficult for me to agree to ratify illegal conduct.”
. . .With both groups seemingly close to producing legislation, King and
the others believe it’s time for them to make their voices heard before
the momentum becomes overwhelming.
“We’ve held our powder dry,” King said, but “decided its time
to come forward now because we are seeing the inertia and we are
concerned about having this wash over us and not have the opportunity
for the constitutional conservatives in this country and in this
Congress to have their voice heard.”
A group of Republican House members led by Iowa Rep. Steve King spoke forcefully in opposition to a mass legalization before first solving the problem of illegal immigration at an event with reporters Thursday. . . .
Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks said that the immigration system should serve Americans and stressed that in terms of immigration, America “is the most compassionate nation in history when it comes to allowing foreigners to become citizens of our country.”
“I want to emphasize the culture that we have in America, that we welcome immigration,” he said, explaining the issue is illegal immigration.
“We have to make a choice: Are we going to have laws, or not have laws? If we are not going to have open borders then that means we have to have laws that restrict who can come and who cannot come in. And we have to enforce those laws,” Brooks said, explaining that it is only a small percentage of people “who have chosen to disregard our laws as their first act on American soil.”
He added that with so many people wishing to come to America, the country should focus on accepting the most valuable and productive people.
“I urge that we get behind an immigration policy that focuses on bringing to America those who are clearly going to be on the productive side of our economy, less likely to be on the consumptive side of our economy,” he said, adding that illegal immigrants contribute to keeping wages low and Americans out of work.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio went on seven Sunday talk shows
to pitch a bipartisan immigration reform deal, while a handful of
Republican lawmakers famous for their wacky cable news interviews can't
get any attention. An anti-immigration "gang of six" in the House is
trying to stop the pro-immigration "gang of eight" in the Senate, The National Review's Robert Costa
reports, but hardly anyone's listening. The six are cable TV favorites:
Minnesota's Michele Bachmann, Iowa's Steve King, Texas' Louie Gohmert,
Alabama's Mo Brooks, Pennsylvania's Lou Barletta, and California's
Dana Rohrabacher. There were zero "anti-amnesty" Sunday show guests
the week before Rubio's grand tour. The most popular cable guests of
the six -- Bachmann, King, and Gohmert -- haven't been invited on cable
to talk immigration in the last three months, according to Lexis Nexis.
They complain the GOP isn't listening to them either.
In 2007, Costa explains, Republican immigration opponents "dominated
the headlines" and "scared off many Republicans who might otherwise have
supported it." Now, "the anti-legalization warriors wonder why their
party suddenly seems to be ignoring their concerns." But once the bill
comes out, he writes, "they think they, not Rubio, will be the
Republicans who shape the debate, especially on talk radio and within
the conservative movement." But that hasn't happened so far! According
to Lexis Nexis -- which, granted, doesn't have every single word uttered
on cable news -- Bachmann, King, and Gohmert haven't been able to get
much time on Fox to sell their view. They're all far more popular on
MSNBC as bad guys than on Fox as good guys.
Check out the tally sheet at the Atlantic Wire. In the National Review article, A Gang of Six Plots a Revolt Costa writes:
King and his crew are not driving the negotiations, and they
increasingly feel like outsiders within their own party. “The meetings
of the Gang of Eight and the secret meetings in the House of
Representatives — the people who have been standing up for the
Constitution and the rule of law haven’t been invited to those
meetings,” King tells the assembled group of reporters. The other
huddlers — Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Lou Barletta (Pa.), Mo Brooks
(Ala.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), and Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.) — nod and
grimace. “We’ve got all the rich guys and the elitists talking to each
other,” Rohrabacher says. “Unfortunately us regular folks don’t have
that kind of coordination.”
Brooks has long been in opposition to allowing leniency to those who
skirted the law to live in the United States. In 2011, Brooks said at a
town hall meeting that the U.S. should "do anything short of shooting them" to keep illegal aliens out of the country.
Tonight,
Brooks pointed to the financial burden illegal aliens are putting on
the economy. He said the U.S. Treasury was writing checks for about $4
billion per year in child tax credits to illegal aliens who are
submitting fraudulent tax forms. He also said that estimates in
Washington indicate illegal aliens are contributing $20 million per year
to the tax system while consuming $100 million per year in taxes.
He acknowledged, however, that his views on immigration are "in the minority" in Washington. Immigration reform, including the amnesty program, has been a rare issue receiving bipartisan support.
Brooks' expertise: caucus memberships
It's curious that Bachmann would invite a member of the Gang of Six to meet with Minnesotans on immigration reform, since that might chill the discussion. Brooks was the author of the died-in-committee "Jobs for Americans Act of 2011."
The caucuses favor closed borders, withholding all federal funding to
cities that do not strictly enforce federal immigration status laws,
and other measures generally characterized as anti-immigrant by those
seeking comprehensive immigration reform.
Research on immigrants and job creation
While Brooks' central assertion--that undocumented workers rob Americans of jobs--is a staple of anti-immigrant talking points, the record is mixed. The New York Times Magazine asked in 2012 Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?, noting:
. . .Labor economists have concluded that
undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a
high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to
7.4 percent.
The impact on everyone else, though, is surprisingly positive. Giovanni
Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis, has written a
series of influential papers comparing the labor markets in states with
high immigration levels to those with low ones. . . . In states with more undocumented immigrants, Peri said, skilled
workers made more money and worked more hours; the economy’s
productivity grew. From 1990 to 2007, undocumented workers increased
legal workers’ pay in complementary jobs by up to 10 percent.
As Congress considers immigration reform, experts across the political spectrum say American jobs are safe.
That
immigrants take the jobs of American-born citizens is “something that
virtually no learned person believes in,” Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration
expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said at a Thursday panel.
“It’s sort of a silly thing.”
Most economists don’t find immigrants driving down wages or jobs, the Brookings Institution's
Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney wrote in May. In fact, “on average,
immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans,”
they write. Foreign-born workers don’t affect the employment rate
positively or negatively, according to a 2011 analysis
from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. And a study
released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress suggests
that granting legal status to undocumented workers might even create
jobs.
The CAP study,
led by the visiting head of the Washington College economics
department, sought to predict what would happen under immigration
reform. The researchers considered a handful of scenarios. In each, it
was presumed that the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants would
be immediately granted legal status. They then looked at the effect of
those undocumented immigrants not being granted citizenship at all over a
decade, getting it immediately, or getting it in five years.
Legal
status alone would lead to the creation of 121,000 extra jobs annually
over the next 10 years, they found. Getting citizenship within five
years would increase that to 159,000 jobs per year. And receiving both
legal status and citizenship this year would create an extra 203,000
jobs annually.
Photo: Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks, Michele Bachmann's go-to guy for meetings with Minnesota Latinos advocating comprehensive immigration reform.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Back during the Republican Revolution in the 1990s, the drive to cut wages by weakening overtime took the form of then Senator John Ashcroft's "Family Friendly Workplace Act," but the principle was the same: allow private business to offer workers the supposedly voluntary option of working long hours, then taking time off rather than overtime. Nevermind that loophole that might allow management to schedule an employee for 60 hours one week, 20 hours the next, without receiving either comp time or overtime.
That was the 1990s version of family-friendly, because moms especially want time off and don't care so much about their paychecks, or so the "family friendly" narrative goes.
Say what
you will, but anti-worker politicians are good at giving deceptive names
to things. “Right to work” takes away your rights at work. “Paycheck
protection” puts your wages at risk. And who could forget Paul Ryan’s
plan to “strengthen Medicare” which ends Medicare as we know it.
House Republicans are pushing the “Workplace Families Flexibility Act of 2013,”
which they claim would allow busy working parents to spend more time
with their kids. That’s bogus. The bill replaces the 40-hour work week
with a “comp time” accrual system that would allow employers greater control over their hourly employee’s schedule.
What’s worse? The bill ends ”time-and-a-half” overtime pay for hourly
and non-exempt workers as we know it, giving renewed incentive for
businesses to work their employees as long as they want with near
impunity.
In other words, the bill does the opposite of what House Republicans say it will. . . .
Check out the deets in the post. Here in Minnesota's Seventh District, we'll be seeing web ads urging Blue Dog Democrat Collin Peterson to enlist in the Republican War on Women's paychecks. (Peterson's already in with the attack on reproductive rights and raising the minimum wage).
The National Republican Congressional Committee is demanding vulnerable House Democrats "support more freedom for working moms" in new web ads, a sign the committee is trying to improve the party's standing with female voters.
The ads call on Democrats to back the GOP-drafted "Working Families Flexibility Act," which would allow employers to give comp time for overtime hours rather than pay employees for them. The bill will likely be voted on in the House next week...
But a spokester for the D-Trip flipped the narrative:
Democrats fired back, pointing out that most House Republicans voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Violence Against Women Act.
"House Republicans wish women voters would forget their past and ignore their agenda, but women voters are too smart for that," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Emily Bittner. "This Republican Congress has been the most extreme, anti-woman legislature in American history with an agenda to deny women equal pay, quality health care services and even domestic violence protections. If Republicans think their problem is the style of their marketing campaign — not the substance they're selling — they've missed the message of the 2012 elections.
Bluestem hopes that Peterson can stuff his latent Republican tendencies back in the closet with his boots and resist the urge to cut working moms' paychecks.
Photo: Blue Dog Seventh District Congressman Collin Peterson.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
In a recent radio interview broadcast by KDIO, Ortonville mayor Steve Berkner inveighed against "intimidation tactics" that had supposedly by used by "special interest" opponents of the Strata Mining Corporation's plan to open a granite quarry in a cow pasture that contains some of Big Stone County's namesake granite outcroppings.
Those tactics? "Busing in" people, carrying signs, chanting, swearing, pounding on tables, grandstanding. For this, Berkner cautions that the city attorney and Ortonville police have been ordered to prevent "intimidation" at the next hearing about Stata, on May 7. Berkner encouraged citizens to submit written remarks, since apparently speaking in public at hearings can be confrontational.
Now, Bluestem attended a number of the zoning and county board hearings on the matter last year, and doesn't remember seeing anyone being "bused in." As for the signs, those carrying them in February 2012 did sing on their way from the Land Stewardship Project's office in Clinton to a zoning meeting about a block and a half away, but set them outside before entering the hearing.
Law enforcement officials were present at that meeting and others, but that's not unusual for large public meetings. Berkner was accusing outside "special interests" (apparently Land Stewardship Project, which maintains a local foods program in Western Minnesota and Clean Up the River Environment, an Upper Minnesota River Valley watershed restoration group based in Montevideo, MN) of using "intimidation tactics," although he doesn't name names.
Since the singing sign carriers and those speaking at the meetings all seemed rather decorous, Bluestem contacted Big Stone County Sheriff John Haukos to see if his department had received complaints or reports of bad behavior. After reviewing his records, Haukos returned our call. No complaints or reports had been filed, although the presence of deputies at meetings were duly recorded.
Indeed, Sheriff Haukos, who had attended many of the meetings, thought that they could be models of public discussion of an issue. He had not observed swearing, pounding of fists, or any such behavior that could be charactized as "intimidation," although he did watch one confrontational exchange after a zoning meeting in Clinton between a citizen and a county commissioner. He determined that the exchange wasn't going to escalate and moved on.
Since Bluestem was there, we too observed that verbal jousting between Dakota scholar Waziyata Win, who lives in the Yellow Medicine Dakota community near Granite Falls and Big Stone County Commissioner Brent Olson. In light of Minnesota history, Bluestem hesitates to call her or the two other Dakota scholars from Marshall and South Dakota who spoke at another meeting "outsiders," however outspoken Waz might be.
Clinton resident Rebecca Terk dropped by both the Ortonville Police department and Big Stone Sheriff's office with the same question. She was told that no complaints or reports of intimidation had been made to either office during the 2012 hearing process.
It's curious that the mayor is inclined to declare opposition to a project by a North Dakota corporation to somehow be a product of "outside special interests," when signs objecting to the annexation of the pasture--since the local township where it had been situated originally enacted a moratorium on the development after residents objected--still grace lawns in his fair community. (To circumvent the township moratorium, the landowner divided his property among relatives, who petitioned to become part of the City of Ortonville; an MPR report here includes remarks by Berkner. An OAH judge ruled that only one parcel could be annexed.).
Also curious in the interview: the host's declaration that if one side doesn't want to speak about a controversy, it's best not to cover an issue at all. Bluestem was under the impression that journalistic convention held that one reported that folks were given an opportunity to present their side, but declined comment.
Indeed, the edited remarks below are characterized by a barely contained hostility toward those who might object to Strata's designs--while insisting that the public has the right to make "respectful" comments. His bar for "respectful" appears to be quite high--with no singing or signs allowed. Indeed, if only people could just write their comments down. That would be so much nicer. Want to speak up in Ortonville? Better meet Mayor Berkner's guidelines for form, presentation and content.
And if Strata Corporation decides to never comment to the press, why the nice respectful radio lady simply wouldn't have to report on anything that happens at all.
Here's the selected audio about the idea of order in Ortonville, drawn from a longer 20-minute interview.. Short fades mark the edits and photo is of Berkner, then a city council member, at a public information hearing held in Ortonville by the Ortonville Township board of supervisors.
Photo: Signs wait outside a Big Stone County planning and zoning board hearing in Clinton, Minnesota in February 2012. Ortonville Mayor Steve Berkner has labeled these signs an "intimidation tactic." Bluestem doesn't find the message "Outcrops Mean Tourism $" to be all that scary, but perhaps the mayor has a much different comfort zone than Bluestem and local law enforcement. (Photo by Rebecca Terk) Below: an anti-annexation sign in an Ortonville lawn last fall.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
The Blaze/ Associated Press is reporting that the founders of American Unity PAC, a national group of prominent GOP donors determined to change Republican minds about the freedom to marry, has formed a lobbying organization.
American Unity PAC was formed last year to lend financial support to Republicans who bucked the party's longstanding opposition to gay marriage. Its founders are launching a new lobbying organization, American Unity Fund, and already have spent more than $250,000 in Minnesota, where the Legislature could vote on the issue as early as next week.
The group has spent $500,000 on lobbying since last month, including
efforts in Rhode Island, Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia and Utah.
Billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican donor Paul Singer
launched American Unity PAC. The lobbying effort is the next phase as
the push for gay marriage spreads to more states, spokesman Jeff
Cook-McCormac told The Associated Press.
In Minnesota, the group has targeted its spending:
In Minnesota, the money has gone
to state groups that are lobbying Republican lawmakers and for polling
on gay marriage in a handful of suburban districts held by Republicans.
So far, only one Minnesota Republican lawmaker has committed to voting
to legalize gay marriage: Sen. Branden Petersen, of Andover.
"I think there will be some more.
There are legislators out there that are struggling with this," said
Carl Kuhl, a former political aide to former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman and
Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Kuhl's public affairs firm
is contracted by Minnesotans United, the lead lobby group for gay
marriage in Minnesota and main recipient of American Unity's Minnesota spending. . . .
Though only one current GOP
officeholder in Minnesota is on record supporting gay marriage, a
handful of prominent Republicans have spoken out in favor of it. They
include former state auditor Pat Anderson and Brian McClung, who was
spokesman for former Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Prominent Republican donors including former politician Wheelock Whitney and businesswoman Marilyn Carlson Nelson have also lent support and donated money.
Since it first formed to campaign against last fall's gay marriage
ban and then shifted to pushing for its legalization at the Capitol,
Minnesotans United has been building Republican alliances, hiring
multiple lobbyists with Republican ties. . . .
Will national Republican money--and influential Minnesota Republicans--have an effect on swaying more conservative legislators?
. . . My friends, family and neighbors have all come a long way in their
recognition that lesbians and gay men like me have the same values,
hopes and aspirations as all other Minnesotans. We are your neighbors,
your co-workers and friends, your brothers and sisters, and we believe
in families just as you do. These are values shared across Minnesota
from the metro to the rural areas of Greater Minnesota.
Marriage
is a commitment, an aspiration, a bundle of hopes and disappointments.
Marriage is full of lessons that amplify our personal, social and
spiritual growth and fulfillment. There isn’t a need for a separate set
of rules. Gays and lesbians don't need a special status. Minnesotans
simply need to let committed same-sex couples share the same rules, same
responsibilities, and same respect that everyone else enjoys. . . .
Under 800 people live in Lake Park, a small town in Becker County that elected Wittnebel mayor.
It's telling that those who wish to block the freedom to marry often seek to use the issue as a line in the sand, whether along party lines or geographical boundaries. It's a politics that relies on divisions. Those supporting marriage equality, on the other hand, are seeking to unite the state across the those boundaries.
Divisive politics? It's worth noting that one side's all for that.
Postcard: It's one state, people.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
The Associated Press is reporting that Moorhead-area state senator Kent Eken (DFL-Twin Valley) will vote for the Dibble bill to extend the freedom to marry for all loving couples.
Eken's decision is a significant development for two reasons. First, Eken was one of four senate democrats who voted in March for a parliamentary maneuver intended to stall the marriage reform. Minnesota Public Radio's Tim Pugmire reported in Senate Republicans try to block same-sex marriage bill:
The day after legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota
cleared two committees, Senate Republicans tried to derail the measure
with some parliamentary maneuvering.
They failed to stop the bill's
progress but tried to use it to put some pressure on some rural
Democrats.
Republicans have previously said
that rural Democrats will have a tough time voting for the bill, when a
majority of their constituents oppose same-sex marriage.
DFL Senators Kent Eken of Twin
Valley, Lyle Koenen of Clara City, Leroy Stumpf of Plummer and Dan
Sparks of Austin joined Republicans in opposition to the adoption.
Another DFLer, Sen. Rod Skoe of Clearbrook, did not take the bait. Skoe
said he disagreed with Hann's characterization of what the vote meant.
Second, the move suggests that Minnesota for Marriage's strategy to demonize the effort to extend the freedom to marry as an epic "metro" versus "rural" battle isn't working.
Vicki Jensen says she has been honest with her constituents from the
start. The freshman senator from Owatonna is the first Democrat to
represent the area in several decades, and her Senate District 24 voted
56 percent in favor of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
last fall. But Jensen plans to vote in favor of a bill to legalize gay
marriage this session.
“I was clear with my constituents on the campaign trail, and I’ve
been clear with them throughout the session. This is the most important
vote I will take all year,” Jensen said. “I have to vote with what I
think is right.” . . .
Has M4M gotten a single additional commitment from a rural DFLer to vote no since launching its tour? Not that we've heard. Perhaps Minnesota Republicans United for Freedom could offer to pay for visits to key suburban districts held by Republicans.
That might help create the margin for clear passage of the marriage equality bills.
Photo: Senator Kent Eken will say yes to marriage equality.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
A push by agricultural groups to avoid an
evaluation this year by the state's legislative auditor has raised red
flags for some lawmakers.
Lawmakers on Wednesday directed the Office of the Legislative
Auditor to audit agricultural commodity councils, over protests from
some of those groups that the move is unnecessary and burdensome. Rep.
Andrew Falk, DFL-Murdock, said the "rampant amount of lobbying" that
some of the councils did to have their name taken off the short list of
potential audit targets was unusual.
Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, said he's
never seen that kind of pushback in his eight years on the Legislative
Audit Commission. Amundson did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.
Falk said he's heard from several farmers who don't understand what the fees pay for and wonder if they're
being used effectively. Falk said he doesn't expect an audit to show
any wrongdoing and that the audit may merely help farmers understand how
each organization works.
Minnesota Public Radio's Tim Pugmire reports in Commission approves nine audit topics:
. . .one commission member said he found it "highly unusual" that
there was some lobbying against an evaluation of Agriculture Commodity
Councils, which the legislative Auditor hasn't taken a look at in more
than 30 years.
Rep. Andrew Falk, DFL-Murdock, said the farmers who fund the councils want to know if their money is being well spent.
"If their books are clean, and if they're doing a good job, they have nothing to fear," Falk said.
Since the councils have power to levy checkoff dollars, that's a good thing.
Photo: Corn. We grow a lot of it in Minnesota, and by statute, a check-off is allowed to be levied by a farmer-led state commodity council.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
At a town hall meeting in Hutchinson on Saturday, state senator Scott Newman assured those in attendance that Senator Majority Leader Tom Bakk is so not letting the bill allowing the freedom to marry come to a floor vote, the Hutch Leader reports.
Also: representative Dean Urdahl (R-Grove City) wants Senate District 18 voters to know that some of Glencoe representative Glenn Gruenhagen's friends are straight people.
Bluestem is unsure when the Hutchinson Republican backbench senator became a DFL state caucus insider, but the sidebar report from Leader staff writer Jorge Sosa, Defining marriage, reads as if Newman claims to know the deepest sentiments in Bakk's heart:
Sen. Scott Newman thinks it will be a long shot for either a bill
legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions to come to the Senate floor
for a vote this year.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, he said,
may be a DFLer but he’s an Iron Ranger who hails from a fiscally liberal
yet socially conservative district. “In the Senate, they’d have to get
past (Bakk) and I doubt they can do it.”
All sides agree the House is the chamber to watch. Gay marriage has
already survived a procedural vote in the full state Senate, suggesting
enough votes to pass there, and Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk has said
it’s on hold pending House passage.
In Hutchinson on Saturday, Newman--senate author of the ill-fated voter restriction amendment that with the marriage amendment that helped remove his party from power--was joined by SD18 representatives Urdahl and Gruenhagen. Urdahl was certain that the matter would come up for a vote in the House:
Rep. Dean Urdahl said he’s “pretty confident” it will come up for a vote
in the House, although he and Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen will not vote in
favor of either a same-sex marriage or civil union bill.
Gruenhagen assured the audience that some of his best friends were gay:
“Traditional marriage is the economic cornerstone of our civilization,”
Gruenhagen said, and added, “I have gay friends and I have former gay
friends who are now married with children — and there are thousands of
them.”
Dean Urdahl wasn't comfortable with that assertion and moved to clarify the nature of Gruenhagen's friendships for those attending the town hall:
“Glenn, you also have some straight friends,” Urdahl quipped.
GOP House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt initially sidestepped questions
about Gruenhagen's comments, but later issued a statement calling
Gruenhagen's comments "inappropriate." He agreed with Thissen on the
decision to stop allowing members to announce guests on the House floor.
Sosa also reports that Gruenhagen believes that cutting alleged fraud in the HHS budget can totally close a projected $627 million budget deficit in 2014-15. After all, $2.7 million of fraud was found in the system:
He cited findings by DHS inspector general Jerry Kerber, appointed in
2011 to identify fraud, waste and mismanagement in state health and
welfare programs. “Inspector Kerber found $2.7 million of fraud in the
system,” Gruenhagen said.
Bluestem agrees that fraud is a bad thing, but isn't certain that the other $623.3 million can be made up by eliminating fraud in the health and welfare programs, or through the needed cross-checking of eligibility discrepancies in public assistance programs that the Legislative Auditor has recommended.
Perhaps Gruenhagen could identify additional revenue sources that aren't taken out of the hide of Minnesota's poor and vulnerable.
Photo: Scott Newman (middle) and Dean Urdahl (right) keep straight faced while listening to Glenn Gruenhagen (left) talk at a town hall at the Hutch Cafe. Photo by Jorge Sosa.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Two letters published in Forum Communications newspapers in Red Wing and Alexandria illustrate the on-going debate in Greater Minnesota about the freedom to marry.
In one letter, a Missouri Synod pastor with long-standing anti-gay sentiments invokes fears that children will be forced to gay marry. In the other, a tenth-grade altar boy notes "if you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t get one."
. . . This debate over unnatural marriage is so crucial. Kids will be hurt — 97 percent of the children.
A 6-year-old girl asked her mother shortly after the November referendum, “Mommy, does this mean I will have to marry a woman?”
What do little boys and girls think of, hope for, dream of but growing up and getting married?
Embedding the possibility of boys marrying boys and girls marrying
girls into law will bring into question those dreams, if not destroy
them.
This 6-year-old was expressing a fear that she would be
forced into something very unusual, something that is difficult if not
impossible for children to understand.
There will be more confusion among children and teenagers about their sexual identity.. . .
Although he's not identified in this letter as a Lutheran pastor by the Red Wing Republican Eagle, Stehr has been writing against all things gay since at least March 2008, when he equated the movie "The Bible Tells Me So" with Satan, warning that gay "behavior [was] . . .unnatural, unhealthy and contrary to God's plan." Red Wing's local PFLAG chapter would only confuse the children and besides, millions of kids are orphaned by AIDS in Africa (Stehr seems confused about epidemiology).
In a second letter that month, Stehr claimed that traumatic childhoods create queer folk, who have no choice over their orientation, but who can chose "therapy which has proven successful for thousands (Exodus International, Homosexuals Anonymous, etc.)." In short, pray away the gay, the conversion therapy that the
"ethics guidelines of major mental health organizations in the United
States vary from cautionary statements to recommendations that ethical
practitioners refrain from practicing conversion therapy (American
Psychiatric Association) or from referring patients to those who do (American Counseling Association).
Last year, before the marriage amendment vote, Stehr wrote that he and his wife had lived in the Czech Republic for a year and saw no support for marriage equality:
My wife and I lived in Prague, Czech Republic, for a year. It is the
most atheistic city in the world. You would think that without the
influence of religion (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.) same-sex
marriage would have been approved of long ago. We heard nothing of such a
movement. One reason is the traditional family is so very important to
them.
Stehr is only thinking of the children; in Douglas County, it seems as if the children can think for themselves. Up in the Alexandria Echo Press, 10th grader Alec Roth doesn't appear to be confused in his letter, Gays should be able to marry:
In this free country that we love to live in, there are many times
that we may have to swallow our pride to avoid other people’s rights
being trampled. The amount of controversy around gay marriage during
this age is astonishing; with many people going out of their way to
shoot down another’s fundamental and constitutional rights.
While
I’ve been through St. Mary’s private and Catholic education, have served
the Lord for eight years (and counting) as an altar boy, I still
believe that these gays and lesbians wishing to get married should be
able to.
These gays and lesbians all have names and lives. They
pay taxes, support our local economy, and interact with every aspect of
the community. Saying gays don’t deserve to get married is saying that
Emma can’t get married, Jason shouldn’t be able to adopt a kid, Scott
should never be able to put a ring on the finger of someone he loves.
These
people have names, they love everyone for who they are, and most
importantly, they love their partners. They need to be fought for. Emma
needs to be fought for. Whether it is a sin or not is beside the point.
I
for one will not stop a straight atheist couple from getting married
just because they don’t have the ceremony in a church. The church
legally does not need to honor their marriage, but the government does.
Why should it be any different with gays? With this free nation we all
hold dear to our hearts, we all need to include everyone in order for
our Constitution to work. So please, if you don’t want a gay marriage,
don’t get one.
Seems pretty straightforward.
Photo: A same-sex ceremony in the Czech Republic, 2004. Via Radio Prague.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.
The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.
Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, served as a New Media training and strategy consultant for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party from October 2009 through mid-April 2010. She now serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors.
Recent Comments