Should government-funded nonprofits do election work? HF 72 says ‘no’

A bill working its way through the state House of Representatives would ban government-funded nonprofit corporations from spending that cash on election campaign work.

HF 72 is authored by 2nd-term state Rep. Eliott Engen (R-36A, White Bear). It contains just a single sentence:

An entity or organization, including any nonprofit organization, that receives state
funding may not make a campaign expenditure or otherwise expend money for any political purpose. As used in this section, “state funding” includes receipt of public funds through a direct appropriation or a legislatively named, competitive, or other form of grant.

Simple enough. You may recall, for example, my piece last summer on the massive food nonprofit Second Harvest Heartland. The nonprofit receives millions of dollars in state taxpayer funding (in some years, tens of millions). Yet, it found funding to hire a “voter engagement coordinator” in the run up to last year’s election.

I frequently write about another state-funded non-profit organization, Somali Community Resettlement Services (SCRS). This nonprofit stated in its 2021 annual report (p. 9):

In 2022, we will focus efforts on educating and informing our clients about the voter registration process. Many of our clients come from countries where there is no democratic process. They want to be active participants in their communities and see great value in the honor and privilege of asserting their voting privileges.

In 2023, SCRS reported (p. 3) that the group registered 1,500 voters the previous year.

I stand by the hugely controversial position that taxpayer-funded entities should not get to choose the politicians who vote them money. On Monday, the bill was passed out of committee on a 6-5 partisan vote.

Nonprofit corporations are not entitled to taxpayer-funded grants. If they want free government money, nonprofits can agree to refrain from election activities. Otherwise, they could always go raise donations from individuals and private foundations, like any other charity would.

Session Daily reports on the Democratic opposition to the bill:

Democrats unsuccessfully offered three amendments that would have:

• prohibited all corporations and any entity receiving a state tax deduction or tax credit from making political contributions;
• removed the state funding language and make it illegal for any entity or organization to make a political contribution; and
• insured that “any association, political committee or fund, person, political party, or political party unit who spends $10,000 or more in an election cycle segment on covered campaign spending or who accepts $10,000 or more in an election cycle segment of in-kind contributions” would need to keep transfer records, allow donors to opt out of their donations being spent for political purposes, and make detailed donor reports to the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board.

In the first bullet, tax deductions and tax credits are, by definition, made available to all taxpayers. Rep. Engen is targeting those nonprofits who are chosen (at the deliberate exclusion of others) by state government to receive direct funding.

In the second bullet, in order to make a partisan political point, Democrats would effectively ban all political parties and political action committees from existing. Perhaps an idea worth considering.

In the third bullet, Democrats offer a 15-page “amendment” (including a “blank-check” appropriation) to a one-sentence policy bill. Democrats had two full years with complete control of state government to enact any campaign finance reform they chose to. They chose none.

The Senate companion bill (SF 996) was introduced earlier this month. It has yet to receive a hearing in that Democrat-majority chamber.