Suburban voters reading the March 10 article in the Sun Sailor, Kathleen Fowke announces run in Senate District 45 or visiting her campaign website's biography would get the impression that Fowke, the endorsed Republican Senate candidate was nothing less than a person from a hardscrabble background who rose to a comfortable suburban life through an entrepreneurial spirit.
But read Karlee Weinmann's campaign finance analysis for the Energy and Policy Institute, Utility executive contributions surge in Minnesota state senate race, and a much different picture emerges:
Out-of-state utility interests with a history of obstructing climate and clean energy legislation joined with Xcel Energy executives to pump tens of thousands of dollars into a Minnesota state senate race on behalf of first-time Republican candidate Kathleen Fowke – the wife of former Xcel Chairman and CEO Ben Fowke.
Of the $87,760 in individual and lobbyist contributions that Fowke has raised since announcing her run for Senate District 45 earlier this year, $63,100 came from donors with ties to the utility industry, most of whom live and work outside of Minnesota, according to an Energy and Policy Institute analysis of a campaign finance report made public last week. Only 27 of the 120 itemized individual and lobbyist contributions appear unrelated to the utility or energy industries. Forty-two utility-affiliated donors gave $1,000 apiece, the state-mandated maximum.
Factoring in a $100,000 loan she made to her campaign and other contributions, Fowke, a realtor, has $135,747 on hand – the most money banked of any Minnesota senate candidate in a high-stakes election year when every state-level seat is up for grabs. The candidate with the second-most cash on hand is Fowke’s opponent, Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) candidate Kelly Morrison, with $115,838. Morrison, a physician, has served two terms in the Minnesota House, where she is a member of the House Climate Action Caucus and has led on environmental policy.
The District 45 senate seat is open after redistricting shuffled the field and is considered a swing district that candidates from both parties have a shot at winning. Minnesota is the only state with a divided legislature, with Republicans controlling the Senate and DFLers controlling the House, sharpening the focus on tight races. The stakes are also high for utilities, since legislators set policies and determine the scope for regulations that guide utilities’ operations and bottom line.
Money traces to large polluting utilities
Fowke’s campaign finance reads like a who’s-who of executives from utility giants.
The biggest benefactors include Xcel Energy, whose executives and their spouses along with the utility’s lobbyists have given a combined $24,500. Xcel is trailed by NextEra Energy, a Florida-based energy company whose executives have funneled $17,350 into Fowke’s coffers. NextEra is based in Florida but has developed wind projects in Minnesota. It also has a reputation for interfering in state politics to sink consumer-friendly clean energy policy, leading to a series of recent scandals. . . .
Last week, reporters revealed NextEra subsidiary Florida Power & Light (FPL) secretly took control of a Florida news site to promote the company’s narrative. FPL CEO Eric Silagy – who gave Fowke $1,000 – personally instructed others to target a prominent state senator and FPL critic pushing for increased access to rooftop solar. “I want you to make his life a living hell … seriously,” Silagy wrote in an email made public last week.
In perhaps an even more brazen attempt to interfere in state politics, FPL executives – including Silagy – were closely connected to a state election scandal that involved recruiting and funding sham candidates to siphon votes away from incumbent Democrats who fought the utility’s efforts to dismantle rooftop solar policy. Silagy personally communicated with consultants leading the effort, and appears to have personally directed money to the dark money groups funding the scheme.
Also appearing on Fowke’s donor list are executives from a number of other utility giants: American Electric Power, Alliant Energy, Ameren, Dominion Energy, DTE Energy, Edison International, and more. All of these corporations are influential in state politics where they operate, and have significant fossil fuel portfolios – assets they have sought to protect and invest in, despite mounting calls from scientists, policymakers, and the public to increase investments in renewable energy and electrification.
Though Fowke’s campaign platform includes some general language about energy issues – including calls to be “energy independent” and for a “cleaner future” – it is short on specifics. But Fowke has made clear her ties to Xcel, which is routinely among Minnesota’s biggest lobbying forces and a reliable donor to Minnesota Republicans who block clean energy and climate legislation. On her campaign Facebook page in June, Fowke touted a “great meeting with Xcel” and included a photo that appears to show her husband along with Xcel lobbyist John Marshall. It also features the daughter of another Xcel executive, Tony Gagliardo.
Guess voters will have to visit that Facebook page.
All but $500 of Fowke's lobbyist $3,500.00 in lobbyist contributions come from registered Xcel or NSP lobbyists, while her $750 in itemized political action committee (PAC) funds came from two groups. Of that relative chump change that totals $1250, $500 was donated by Dorsey & Whitney lobbyist Michael Ahern:
Mike has decades of experience representing state regulated businesses at the Legislature and before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, the Department of Commerce, the Pollution Control Agency and other State regulatory bodies.
Xcel Energy is a Dorsey & Whitney client, according to Client Achievement statements like this one on the law firm's website.
Of the $750 of PAC money on the report, $500 came from the Dorsey Political Fund. Ahern is the chair of the fund. The $500 to Fowke was twice that other Senate Republican candidates received; however, it's worth noting that the PAC's largest contributions are to Minnesota legislative caucus campaign funds. The Republicans Senate Victory Fund received $10,500.00, while the DFL House Caucus got $7,500.00; the house and senate minority caucus campaign committees each were tossed $5000.00.
So why do concentrated individual contributions from one company or one industry matter?
The Center for Responsive Politics standard
Back in 2015, we listened to former state representative Denny McNamara brag about how he was totally independent of any PAC, lobbyist or whatever contributions. He made fun of anyone who might say otherwise.
And Minnesota campaign finance law doesn't measure industry or business concentration of individual contributions.
But the Center for Responsive Politics does look at this factor, Bluestem discovered as we put together our post, Of the loners at the Center for Responsive Politics & McNamara's campaign finance fables:
That sort of loner-hood is the sort of thing that the respected Center for Responsive Politics--which focuses mostly on federal campaign finance and public disclosure issues--describes on its FAQ page in one item in a section on research and methodology:
In tracking campaign contributions from industries, why do you include contributions from individuals, and not just PACs?
CRP is the only organization that invests in categorizing campaign contributions by industry in a way that includes individuals' contributions, not just money from political action committees. Here's the logic behind our methodology: Since corporations and other organizations are prohibited from making political contributions from their treasuries, one must look at the contributions from people associated with the institution to gauge its political persuasion and how it might be trying to exert influence in Washington. Also, the Federal Election Commission requires disclosure of a donor's employer and occupation if they contribute more than $200, which suggests the government is concerned about individuals' economic, or industrial, interests. We know that not every contribution is made with the donor’s economic or professional interests in mind, nor do we assert that every donor considers their employer’s interests when they make a contribution. But our research over more than 20 years shows enough of a correlation between individuals’ contributions and their employers’ political interests that we feel comfortable with our methodology. We have also observed that the donors who give more than $200, and especially those who contribute at the maximum levels, are more commonly top executives in their companies, not lower-level employees.
This methodology, applied on the state level, may be what produces the sense of some that [a candidate or lawmaker] is in the pocket of special interests.
No one has suggested that McNamara takes money from lobbyists or PACs. Instead, loners who accept the methodology of CRP's Open Secrets--and data there is used by both parties in critiquing federal candidates-- agree with this premise:
But our research over more than 20 years shows enough of a correlation between individuals’ contributions and their employers’ political interests that we feel comfortable with our methodology. We have also observed that the donors who give more than $200, and especially those who contribute at the maximum levels, are more commonly top executives in their companies, not lower-level employees.
The disclosure threshold for state giving is $100, rather than $200, but the principle is the same.
Looking at this race, we're pleased at Karlee Weinmann's analysis for the Energy and Policy Institute, Utility executive contributions surge in Minnesota state senate race.
We can only hope that journalists examine campaign contributions from individuals who work in the sports betting world and other hot button industries.
Screengrab: From a tweet about the article:
Fowke’s campaign paid $1,235 to hold a fundraiser at the Ritz Carlton Grande Lakes in Orlando, FL while EEI held a meeting for its member utilities at another hotel in the same complex, a two-minute walk away. Fowke posted a photo with attendees wearing EEI conference badges. pic.twitter.com/r6BvBWwpYs
— Energy & Policy Inst (@EnergyandPolicy) August 1, 2022
Related posts:
- Hot potato politics: Offutt family members gave Representative Denny McNamara campaign cash
- No small potatoes: Dept of Natural Resources requires EAW for pinelands to spud fields project
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments