Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.

Donate

9 things to know about Amy Klobuchar

Sen. Amy Klobuchar
REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein
Sen. Amy Klobuchar sailed to a third term in her 2018 Senate race, winning 60 percent of the vote.

The self-proclaimed “senator next door” is officially hoping to walk through another door: that of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar is a popular politician in her state of Minnesota, gaining support and cash from both liberals and, to a lesser degree, conservatives.

She smoothly sailed to a third term in her 2018 Senate race, raising more than 38 times the cash her Republican opponent raised — and winning 60 percent of the vote. (Her “Minnesota nice” persona hasn’t worked on everyone: Back in 2011, Justin Bieber said Klobuchar should be locked up for proposing an anti-piracy bill concerning unlicensed online content.)

Before becoming the first Minnesota woman elected to the U.S. Senate, Klobuchar, 58, served as county attorney for the most populous county in Minnesota, Hennepin County. Her prosecutorial experience came into focus during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh: Klobuchar’s exchange with Kavanaugh about whether he ever blacked out while drinking — he retorted, “Have you?” — went viral and earned her a spoof on Saturday Night Live.


Here are nine things you should know about Klobuchar’s politics and finances:

  • Klobuchar raked in donations from chief executive officers from 11 of Minnesota’s 25 largest corporations, according to a Star Tribune analysis of data from the 2017-2018 election cycle. Two of the CEOs, Scott Wine of snowmobile-maker Polaris Industries and Stanley Hubbard of Hubbard Broadcasting, normally give the majority of their money to Republicans. But they gave to Klobuchar anyway.
  • Klobuchar is known for her consumer rights advocacy. Online privacy protections and investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election are among her causes. She cosponsored the Honest Ads Act, which would beef up disclosure of online political ads, and spoke about passing “a whole bunch of bills” to regulate Facebook in the wake of its handling of Cambridge Analytica’s harvesting of Facebook users’ personal information. Facebook nevertheless took a small step toward getting on Klobuchar’s good side: Its political action committee donated $2,500 to her campaign in September, months after the scandal unfolded.
  • Klobuchar is worth anywhere in between $836,000 and $1.9 million, according to her latest financial disclosure from May 2018. Her assets are stored in a mix of mutual funds, retirement plans and bank accounts. She also received about $300 in royalties from her senior thesis-turned-book “Uncovering the Dome,” a history of the construction of the former Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis.
  • Klobuchar currently has $3.9 million stored in her campaign coffers, which she may use in her presidential run. That puts her in the upper echelon of presidential candidates or potential contenders already in office, along with President Donald Trump, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.; Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. and Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

  • Before running for U.S. Senate, Klobuchar was a corporate lawyer in Minneapolis. Her fellow attorneys appear most supportive of her federal ambitions, with lawyers and law firm PACs together donating the most money among industry classes to her three U.S. Senate campaigns — more than $3 million.
  • From 2013 to 2018, Klobuchar collected about $430,000 more from male donors than female donors — at least among donations greater than $200, where donor names are required to be reported, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, a Center for Public Integrity analysis found that women provided more than half of Klobuchar’s donations between 2017 through November 2018 through the conduit ActBlue, which includes smaller checks.
  • Klobuchar had the highest staff turnover rate in the Senate, at 36 percent, according to a Politico analysis of Legistorm data from 2001 to 2016. (She told the New York Times she has “high expectations.”) A HuffPost investigation found at least three people withdrew themselves from consideration for jobs Klobuchar’s presidential campaign because of rumors involving her mistreating staff.
  • In 2007, Canadian officials gave Klobuchar a hand-blown glass bowl worth $150. A Federal Registrar filing noted “non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. government.” Klobuchar kept the bowl “for official display in 302 Hart Senate building.”
  • Klobuchar stayed on the good side of people she dated, apparently: Klobuchar said she raised $17,000 from ex-boyfriends toward her 2006 Senate run.

Sources: Center for Public Integrity reporting, Federal Election Commission, Center for Responsive Politics, Federal Registrar, U.S. Senate, The New York Times, Star Tribune, Elle, Politico, Sen. Klobuchar office press releases

Comments (6)

  1. Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 02/11/2019 - 08:14 am.

    11. She is a neoliberal who will ever protect corporations, banks and billionaires over the economic empowerment of working people.

    12. She has never met a war spending authorization she would not support, even giving both Obama and Trump authorization to disappear American citizens under the justification of an eternal war on terror – while abdicating her Congressional authority to declare war, while contributing to McCarthyite delusions about Russia (the crown jewel in regime change doctrine) which has been more about cracking down on dissension in America than soul searching about what Democrats have done to abandon so many working people who voted for Trump.

    13. The waters of the land of 10,000 lakes have become ever more polluted during her time as Senator, due in part to her unvarying support for corporate, industrial agriculture, while she is supporting guaranteed-to-pollute copper/nickel in sulfides mining in northern Minnesota.

    14. Every single county in Minnesota voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. She, like most of Minnesota’s super delegates, voted for Hillary Clinton.

    • Submitted by Pat Terry on 02/11/2019 - 01:23 pm.

      Actually, zero counties voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. Because what Sanders won was the caucus, in which a tiny, unrepresentative fraction of people participated. In fact, the caucus was so bogus that the legislature promptly eliminated the presidential caucuses.

      And of course she voted for Clinton as a superdelegate. By the time superdelegates voted, Clinton had received millions more votes than Sanders. Why would anyone want superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters? Klobuchar respected the electorate.

      I want a candidate who has not been under FBI investigation. One who believes in transparency and will release tax their tax returns. Someone who is different from Trump. I don’t know if Amy is my choice, but she’s got a million times more integrity than Sanders ever did.

      • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 02/11/2019 - 02:03 pm.

        Pat,

        Sanders won every single one of the 440 county caucuses. But I suppose you are right, those who actually went to the caucuses are the sort of people the democratic party left behind a long time ago….if evidenced by how the DNC and corporate media thereafter and before gamed the system in favor of Hillary, ignoring the caucuses.

        (Caucuses are arguably more democratic than a primary, but drive-up primaries are more convenient to this thing we call capitalism.)

        For those of us who supported Bernie’s run, the DNC has no shame…and zero integrity. Evidenced too by how immediately after the election of Trump, by way of damage control, the DNC, Hillary, Amy etc Dems and corporate media blamed RussiaRussiaRussia; even to this day, anyone on the left who criticizes Russiagate gets painted as a Putinstooge. Dems have stood silently as big tech has used Russiagate to effectively censor independent media. McCarthyism is alive and well among core Democrats.

        Trump is precisely what Dems deserve, after treating Obama like a saint, after embracing all things corporate, bank and billionaire at the expense of working people, after abandoning local politics in the haze of Obama righteousness.

        Now that Dems have embraced war and the intelligence community to spite Trump…working people have no party to vote for any more.

        • Submitted by Pat Terry on 02/11/2019 - 05:09 pm.

          “Sanders won every single one of the 440 county caucuses”

          That statement is 100 percent objectively and unequivocably false. Its just not true. Clinton won a number of counties.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Minnesota_Democratic_caucuses

          And no, there is no way that caucuses are more democratic. That statement is disgusting and offensive. Caucuses disenfranchise people who work nights, who travel for work, who serve in the military, who have young kids, who are old and disabled and can’t make it the caucus night. You can’t limit the times and locations available to vote and call it more democratic. We complain about how Republicans try to disenfranchise minority voters, but caucuses are worse than anything they do. Caucuses are not just undemocratic – they are racist. And the fact that Sanders won’t say anything about that (because they benefit him) speaks to his lack of integrity.

          The DNC didn’t ignore the caucuses – they counted. Sanders benefitted from the massive voter disenfranchisement of caucuses and they made the race closer than it actually was. Look, the last poll in Minnesota several weeks before the caucus gave Clinton a huge lead over Sanders. Do you really think the caucus was democratic? Of course not, which is why it was eliminated.

          No one gamed anything. People just preferred Clinton, especially minority voters. Unfortunately for Sanders, there weren’t enough caucuses to suppress the vote.

          I’m not sure where you are coming from on Russia. Its becoming more and more clear that Russia interfered with the election, and did so by attacking Clinton and supporting Sanders. Those are just facts.

          • Submitted by William Hunter Duncan on 02/12/2019 - 10:21 am.

            Pat,

            My bad. I guess he only won 90% of the counties, because caucuses are racist apparently.

            Now if you were not so sure Russia is the reason Hillary lost, you might try reading the Podesta emails, which show clearly, the DNC, Hillary and corporate media were colluding for Hillary. But Dems never really got to digest those emails, because immediately after the election, Russia was blamed for every little thing.

            The only place it is becoming obvious that Russia gamed the election is in the minds of Hillary partisans. Russia is the crown jewel in regime change doctrine, and Hillary partisans are being lead along by the deep state, intelligence community, corporate media, war profiteers, imperialist establishment, toward a new cold war. Which Ms Klobuchar is not the fire-breathing sort of McCarthyist, but she is helping foster an environment hostile to dissent, censorious to independent media, by way of using big tech to slow traffic to media other than corporate or bezos or murdoch owned.

            Anyway, Hillary lost because she is arrogant, she acted like she deserved to be president, and basically called anyone who didn’t like her a deplorable. She acted like the only reason any one wouldn’t vote for her was because they were mysogynist or racist. Hillary partisans still do, when they aren’t accusing us of being agents of Russia. Never mind the policies of her husband, which trends she has ever supported in her own career, led to mass incarceration and epic income inequality, among other pathologies.

            TPP, the gold standard in corporate control. Fundamentally anti-democratic. She talked of open borders, which is great for depressing wages for working people. I could go on….

  2. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 02/11/2019 - 10:35 am.

    This journalistic fad of thinking authors can decide what readers need to “know” is kind of funny. For some reason I just think converting their relationship with readers into a trendy corporate “meeting” format isn’t going to work out the way branders predict. The whole: “Takeaway’s” format assumes that everyone is aspiring towards intellectual laziness. Whatever.

Leave a Reply