Minnesota Lawyer
A state trooper stands by as demonstrators on both sides of the gay marriage issue gather outside the Minnesota House on May 19, 2011, in St. Paul. (AP file photo: Jim Mone)
Despite the continuing legal drama surrounding the two constitutional amendments headed for this fall’s ballot, the groups formed to support or defeat the amendments to outlaw gay marriage and mandate voter ID are in something of a holding pattern. As new statewide poll results circulate — and the Minnesota Supreme Court hears oral arguments over Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s revised titles for both questions — the latest round of campaign finance reports show a relative lull in raising and spending.
On the marriage amendment challenge, the anti-amendment group Minnesotans United for All Families still has a decisive advantage over its opposition, with a total of $3.6 million raised in 2012 and $863,000 cash on hand. With less than 100 days remaining until Election Day, Minnesotans United has the most money in the bank among all groups in the amendment battle. Its fundraising totals and expenditures, which now top $3.4 million for 2012, far outweigh those of Minnesota for Marriage, the pro-amendment group, which reported 2012 expenditures of about $709,000, and $345,000 cash on hand.
Minnesotans United’s cash advantage has yet to pay off with the public, at least according to a recent Survey USA-KSTP poll, which found a 52 percent majority of likely voters supporting an amendment that “defines marriage as between one man and one woman.”
On the voter ID ballot question, ProtectMyVote.com, which supports the amendment to require photo ID at the voting booth, has a strong lead in public opinion, but very little money to spend. As of July 23, ProtectMyVote.com has only $7,822 cash on hand. Leader Dan McGrath has indicated that the group will be on the hook for legal fees resulting from the legal challenge over Ritchie’s title changes. Though its current bottom line might not cover those expenses, or other basic operational needs, McGrath’s fund has at least one generous supporter: Joan Cummins, wife of longtime GOP financier Bob Cummins, had written two $50,000 checks to ProtectMyVote.com before the last reporting date, and, according to the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board’s 24-hour large contributions records, added another $50,000 check July 31.
In the same Survey USA-KSTP poll, 65 percent of likely voters said they planned to vote in favor of the amendment, with only 28 percent planning to vote against it. That deficit leaves a steep challenge for Our Vote Our Future, the coalition fundraising organization that opposes the amendment. Our Vote Our Future has raised $114,000 in total, but has operated thriftily, spending only $8,482 through July 23.
That’s due to its coalition of backers, which includes AARP Minnesota, Minnesota AFL-CIO, and TakeAction Minnesota. Supportive organizations have donated a total of $85,000 worth of in-kind contributions to Our Vote Our Future, often in the form of free staffing for phone banks and other efforts. Spokeswoman Greta Bergstrom said those in-kind contributions would continue, and likely increase, as Our Vote Our Future seeks out additional coalition members.
“We are the underdogs,” Bergstrom said. “We have an uphill battle going into the last three months.”
If the successful 2008 effort to pass the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment is an accurate predictor, then the fundraising numbers on all sides are likely to spike soon. Paul Austin of Conservation Minnesota recalls a continuous effort to collect donations during the 2008 election cycle, but minimal interest from donors until Election Day was in sight.
“We had always wished that we could raise [money] earlier,” Austin said. “But that sense of urgency is useful and important, and that just doesn’t come until later in the contest.”
