At an April event in Rochester, Jeremy Munson said Republican primary voters in southern Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District should reject candidates who say they are conservative, but who “turn into squish” in Washington, D.C.
The GOP is favored to win the August special election to replace Jim Hagedorn, who died in February. So much so that Munson said Republicans can comfortably pick him, a right-wing fighter, a fiscal hawk, someone in the mold of U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky or U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio.
“We don’t need another Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney to go to Washington and grow government,” Munson told a crowd at the local Eagles Club, flanked by several other candidates. “It’s not just the Democrats who are at fault.”
Munson is one of nine GOP candidates running in the May 24 primary. And the controversial state representative from Lake Crystal — who broke from House Republicans to form a small caucus at the Legislature and is known for frustrating GOP leadership — might just be the favorite.
But there’s one thing standing in his way: much of the Republican establishment.
[image_caption]Brad Finstad[/image_caption]
“He’s a huge disappointment,” said state Sen. Julie Rosen, an influential six-term Republican who chairs the Senate’s Finance Committee and shares a district with Munson. “He hasn’t supported any issue that was relevant to the communities that he was supposed to take care of.”
A breakaway caucus
Munson says he was driven to politics by the cost of health insurance while self-employed after the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, was signed into law in 2010. He also wanted more price transparency in health care, which he eventually helped pass a law to address.
In 2017, he was elected 1st District party chair, and then won a House seat in 2018 representing a rural district south of Mankato. At the Capitol in St. Paul, Munson and three other Republicans quickly made waves by splitting from House Republicans, led by Minority Leader Kurt Daudt of Crown, to form a separate caucus.
The “New House Republicans,” aren’t a bloc within the larger 59-member House GOP caucus. The group stands alone and apart from traditional Republicans. While individual legislators can work together, House Republicans don’t coordinate on votes or strategy with New House GOPers or share resources.
The fissure was caused by distaste for Republican leadership as much as ideological differences. Munson said Republican brass limited what staff they could hire before the separation, and he and fellow New Republican Rep. Tim Miller ran unsuccessfully for leadership positions in the House GOP caucus. Miller called the party’s leaders “hostile” to him.
Since the break, the impact of the New House Republicans has been minimal, though that’s largely because the House has a DFL majority. The new caucus often votes the same as House Republicans, though not always: Munson opposes “reinsurance,” a program meant to stabilize the individual and small-group health insurance market favored by most Republicans. He and his cohort also often publicly criticize GOP leadership in the House and Senate for other positions or actions they view as unethical or not conservative enough.
Last year, the New House Republicans pushed through the Legislature a bill to ban sitting legislators from working as lobbyists. It was directed at Daudt, who works for a public affairs based in Virginia but who contends his work doesn’t involve lobbying.
Munson is also known for voting against most spending, especially when it comes in the form of an “omnibus” bill, which rolls many pieces of legislation into one packaged deal. He believes the practice is unconstitutional and even hosts a podcast called “The Omnibus.”
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Tom Olmscheid[/image_credit][image_caption]The New Republican Caucus, shown in 2019, from left: Rep. Tim Miller, Rep. Steve Drazkowski, Rep. Jeremy Munson and Rep. Cal Bahr.[/image_caption]
But Munson has also led the charge on some quixotic bills, such as one that would allow parts of Minnesota to secede and join other states. And in one instance that exasperated Republican leaders, Munson and one New GOP colleague opposed 2019 legislation to ban state funding for art that promotes terrorism, violence, hate crimes and white nationalism because white nationalism was undefined in law, he said, and the state shouldn’t be determining motives of artists.
Munson describes himself as acting on principle, not beholden to special interests that sway Republican and Democratic leadership. “We don’t have to deal with the pressures from the establishment,” Munson said of New House Republicans. “If we were in the majority … we’d be able to direct and change where things are going.”
If elected to Congress, Munson said he would join the House Freedom Caucus, which is known for agitating against its own Republican leadership to push its priorities.
Munson has been backed by the leaders of that caucus: Jordan and Rep. Scott Perry. Political bedfellows Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have endorsed Munson, as well as former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, conservative activist Morton Blackwell and former state GOP chairman Keith Downey.
“Jeremy has a proven record of standing up to establishment pressure and doing what’s right for the People of southern Minnesota,” Perry said in endorsing Munson. Paul said Munson has a “record as a proven liberty warrior.”
Fierce critics among fellow Republicans
Munson has attracted almost no support from elected officials in Minnesota, however. Most legislators in southern Minnesota, including Rosen, have endorsed Finstad, who was state director for rural development under Trump’s USDA. U.S. Reps. Michelle Fischbach and Pete Stauber of Minnesota are also backing Finstad.
[image_caption]State Sen. Julie Rosen[/image_caption]
And Rosen said Munson’s hard line against spending and omnibus bills — including voting against measures to fund basic infrastructure or services — has gone too far, placing his principles over the needs of people. “He talks about the money; as a conservative you still have to spend money and take care of the needs of the state,” Rosen said. “And for me those are children, the disabled and the aging. You can’t constantly vote no no no no, just to make a statement.”
Rosen said she has even turned to other House lawmakers to carry bills important to the district, which she and Munson share, to ensure the legislation is passed. “Because Jeremy Munson’s principles would perhaps be in the way of the Vernon Center wastewater treatment plant, or the Waldorf wastewater treatment plant, or the road improvements in St. James,” Rosen said.
Munson’s frequent accusations that Republicans aren’t conservative enough grates on Rosen and others. They’re trying to accomplish things, Rosen said, while Munson’s ultimate goal is to “shut the state down just to prove he’s right.”
In 2020, the Legislature passed a $1.9 billion package of publicly financed construction projects, known as a bonding bill, with the help of 25 Republican votes in the House, and the measure passed 64-3 in the Republican-led Senate. Munson voted no, though so did many traditional Republicans.
Munson has carried bills for individual infrastructure projects, and he said his advocacy has helped them become law as part of the bonding bill. But he also said won’t vote for a bonding bill with “pork projects” such as museums and convention centers or topics that make it, in his view, an unconstitutional multi-subject omnibus bill.
A television ad from the Super PAC Defending Mainstreet, a group that supports centrist Republicans and backs Finstad, slams Munson for being one of only four lawmakers to vote against a $330 million COVID-19 relief bill in March 2020 that included money for struggling businesses. “We never faced anything like this before, but Munson still said no,” the ad says.
At the time, Munson argued lawmakers and the public didn’t have enough time to scrutinize the bill. He also didn’t like that it handed some spending decisions to the governor and a smaller group of lawmakers.
Rep. Paul Torkelson, a seven-term Republican from Hanska, said if Munson goes to D.C. and acts the same way as he has in Minnesota, he’ll be part of a small caucus that can’t represent the district well. “If we were in the majority and had this situation with a slim majority, it would be impossible to govern,” Torkelson said of the Minnesota House.
[image_caption]State Rep. Paul Torkelson[/image_caption]
“People didn’t like transparency because a lot of the Republicans will campaign as conservatives and then they go to St. Paul and vote like Democrats,” Munson said. “It’s a team sport but I’m not there to build relationships and build a career. I’m there to enact change.”
The Finstad alternative
Rosen and Torkelson are among those supporting Finstad, a former lawmaker from New Ulm who served three terms in the Minnesota House from 2003 to 2008.
Finstad has pitched himself as a problem solver able to legislate well and achieve conservative goals under a politically divided government. After leaving the Legislature, he farmed and later led the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association and the nonprofit Center for Rural Policy and Development. He was appointed to the USDA by Trump in 2017.
Finstad said his endorsements are evidence he can “make more friends than enemies” and deliver results. He questioned whether Munson would vote for something like the farm bill, an often massive piece of legislation Congress takes up roughly every five years, and he criticized Munson for not supporting government funding to help subsidize high-speed internet infrastructure. The two have disagreed on other issues, too: Finstad says he would have voted to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election while Munson says he would have objected.
“For me it’s not just screaming as loud as you can and getting as much media attention as you can,” Finstad said. “When I served in the Legislature I was in the Republican caucus. I was part of the team that helped run the Republican caucus and helped pass a lot of our conservative value legislation into law.”
Munson may be unpopular among elected officials, but there are signs that he may be the favorite among Republican voters in the district. Jennifer Carnahan, former state GOP chair who resigned after a scandal-plagued tenure, has touted internal polling showing her in front.
But Munson led every round of delegating voting at the district GOP convention. Finstad came in second and Carnahan, who has no endorsements of note, came in third. No one had enough votes to secure an endorsement.
[cms_ad:x104]
Republican state Rep. Eric Lucero — who often aligns ideologically with Munson but hasn’t endorsed him — said Munson is a “phenomenal communicator” with one of the largest social media followings in the Legislature.
[image_caption]State Rep. Eric Lucero[/image_caption]
Munson recently has drawn fire for his ties to operative Cliff Maloney, who was recently charged with raping a woman in 2013. A reporter for Inside Elections said Maloney was assisting Munson in the 1st District campaign, and the Minnesota Reformer reported Munson paid Maloney’s consulting firm.
Munson said he knew Maloney because he led Young Americans for Liberty, which supported Munson’s 2020 state House campaign. “We made phone calls to him when I first started because I don’t know people in Washington, D.C,” Munson said, in the run-up to his congressional campaign.
Munson also said Maloney is part of the firm he hired, but he’s working with another person for the purposes of door knocking and other services. He called the charges “disturbing news” and said Maloney won’t be part of his campaign.
The Munson agenda
Munson’s top issue of the campaign cycle is a bread and butter topic: inflation. He blames tax cuts and spending approved by Republicans and Democrats, and he has opposed a federal aid package for Ukraine supported by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy has driven our economy off a cliff, and we must audit the Fed and take corrective action,” Munson said, answering a recent MinnPost questionnaire. “We must also significantly reduce spending in advance of rising interest rates.”
Munson also promotes what might be the most right-wing platform of any major candidate. He said he will never vote to raise the debt ceiling, and he calls the 2020 election results — including his own state House race — illegitimate because of changes to election procedure done without legislative approval. He unsuccessfully sued to stop the Minnesota results from being certified.
He said abortion should be illegal except for when a mother’s life is at risk, and he would not exempt cases of rape or incest.
[image_credit]Susan Walsh/Pool via REUTERS[/image_credit][image_caption]Dr. Anthony Fauci[/image_caption]
He said farm bills are usually good and important to the district, but wants to separate food benefit programs from agriculture programs. He wouldn’t commit to voting for specific bills yet.
Munson has pushed back against Finstad for being supported by the GOP establishment and by a PAC tied to the Koch brothers that doesn’t endorse candidates who run on “election integrity” issues. A PAC connected to Rand Paul has also critiqued Finstad for a legislative record they view as too liberal.
One key political friend Munson does have in Minnesota outside of the New House GOP is the endorsed Republican candidate for governor, Scott Jensen. The former state senator and family doctor donated to Munson, and Munson appeared on stage with Jensen at the GOP convention in Rochester on Saturday to bolster Jensen’s conservative bona fides.
In an interview, Jensen called Munson effective at the Legislature. Jensen sponsored the health care price transparency bill with Munson and the two have also found common ground in supporting Fauci foe Rand Paul. Jensen stopped short of an endorsement citing his campaign for governor, but said Paul supporting Munson “was pretty darned impactful.”
That endorsement, however, won’t sway Rosen, who said splitting from the Republican caucus put Munson and his three colleagues “into a box.”
“They became irrelevant,” Rosen said. “Which meant (Munson) was irrelevant to the district he serves instead of trying to make something happen.”
Munson was endorsed by Rep. Jordan and Rep. Scott Perry. Political bedfellows Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have endorsed Munson, as well as former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann. The only truly off-the-rails endorsement he is missing is from Sarah Palin and I suppose he hasn’t approached her yet.
Has Munson been endorsed by a single noncertifiable public servant? I am guessing no since he is taking sides on every issue that put him at odds with all right-thinking individuals. The good news is that he is too ‘out there’ for even current GOP leadership.
Most Minnesota republican politicians would be considered democrats elsewhere. We call them members of the Uniparty for a reason.
We need legislators like him. He openly opposed the print and spend policy embraced by both parties, especially the hundreds of billions doled out for Covid relief. Some relief. With today’s runaway inflation, he’s looking pretty smart.
First of all, thank you for finally, finally, actually expressing an opinion on a substantive issue, and not one merely quibbling about the proper mental operations of (mostly) liberals.
That this opinion is a rightwing one (based on erroneous factual misunderstanding) is not a surprise, but I’m still pleased to see it. Of course, no responsible macroeconomist challenges that the Covid relief bills of the past two years were absolutely necessary in the face of the worst economic contraction since the Great Depression, nor do they maintain that those spending bills contributed in any substantial way to the current bout of post-Covid inflation. That’s just the latest version of the ubiquitous “conservative” nostrum that all gub’mint spending is bad.
I don’t care what “responsible macroeconomist(s)” say. I will always oppose the government giving my money to businesses. Where’s the evidence this works? If they’re giving away money, give it to me. That works.
And doesn’t deficit spending encourage inflation? It would only make sense. The more money you print, the less it’s worth.
“I don’t care what…”
That’s an anti-intellectual stance. Common sense is never going to explain Keynesian macroeconomics to you. And that’s an economic theory which has been proven (by reliable evidence) to “work” for going on 90 years now.
But just as a teaser for you, the federal government has engaged in deficit spending each and every fiscal year of the 21st Century (some more, some less.) Yet inflation remained quite low and stable year after year until the latter half of 2021, which coincided with the emergence of the world’s economies from the pandemic. So no, deficit spending doesn’t always encourage inflation, based on the evidence before your very eyes.
“That’s an anti-intellectual stance.” No, it’s a logical one. By itself, which is how you presented it, it’s the Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Deficit spending has always been associated with inflation. You can pay now, or pay later. Guess what. It’s later.
Your perpetual misunderstanding of the Appeal to Authority causes you to consistently advance uninformed opinions and persist in them (as well as resist informed opinions), thinking you are following “logical” precepts. In the real world, working knowledge of expert opinions on subjects that one knows little or nothing about (like Keynesian economics for you) is a critical thinking skill, important to all knowledge workers. So all you are really doing is proclaiming allegiance to ignorance in the guise of “following logic”.
I’m not going to regurgitate the routine analysis of academic economists for you. Indeed, if you actually read what I wrote you would see that a portion of their (expert) argument is present, and not merely a reference to authority. Appeals to “logical fallacies” can’t be allowed to become a resort to studious Know-Nothingism.
And your response to my (evidence-based) argument about deficit spending is to simply deny the evidence and obstinately reassert your (irrational) “argument”. I’m not sure the professors of logic would be proud….
You are wrong. Citing expert opinion is not evidence for any argument, and never will. Without citing the data, it is the Classic Appeal to Authority fallacy.
Now to the argument. “In regards to current inflation, the main contributing factors include the increase in the money supply, worker shortages and rising wages, supply chain disruption, as well as fossil fuel policies.” https://mint.intuit.com/blog/planning/causes-of-inflation/
Notice the first. The increase in the money supply. This is what I referred to, and it only makes sense. The more you have of something the less valuable it is. You don’t have to be an expert to see that.
First of all, you quite clearly said that you “don’t care” to know what experts in a field think abut something. That’s the very definition of anti-intellectual, and appeals to logic can’t alter that fact.
Second, I’m fine with that summation of the (multiple) causes of inflation. You were acting as though Covid relief was the sole cause of inflation. And now you’re talking about money supply rather than deficit spending and the crackpot Munson’s idea that the government didn’t need to pass Covid relief. The Fed is largely responsible for money supply in the economy, and it’s been increasing. But that’s largely the Fed’s doing. When the Treasury is required to spend more than it has, it doesn’t just “print money”. It has to issue bonds to obtain the money and someone has to buy them. That’s how the national debt rises, by issuing debt.
Back to my original point. We need people like Munsen, just like we need people like Omar. We need people willing to challenge the status quo.
Deficit spending does not increase the money supply.
Where do you think the money came from? Deficit spending.
Googling brings up a wide variety of opinion with many saying yes, it can increase inflation, citing the same basic idea I said, that the more money pumped in, the less it’s worth. So your absolutist statement on this is not correct.
“Googling brings up a wide variety of opinion with many saying yes, it can increase inflation . . .”
That’s just their opinion. Are you arguing from authority? Or are you trying to obfuscate the subject?
It’s pretty obvious that you don’t know what the money supply is, or what deficit spending is. It’s just my opinion, but I believe that the money supply refers to the total amount of money (cash, deposits, liquid instruments) in circulation. That amount is set by central bankers, such as the Federal Reserve. Deficit spending – again, just my opinion – is the practice of the government of borrowing money to meet expenditures not covered by tax revenues. It does not create new money, any more than charging a tank of gas on your Visa card creates new money.
The question of whether deficit spending is the only, or even the primary, cause of inflation is another matter.
Some of you may remember a time when people in political office were called public servants. We pay their wages, they pass the legislation we need. They advocated their own politics, of course, or at least ostensibly the politics of their constituents.
Alas, such civic-minded folks have become a disappearing breed these recent years. But this blowhard is operating at a whole ‘nother level of cluelessness to his responsibilities as a public servant.
Trouble is, it’s the same for many other members of his party, too. . So why do so many voters give him the platform? Is he merely for entertainment? Can’t you just watch professional wrestling? At least wrestling is more honest.
There is more than one reason he should not be nominated and elected. His policies.
Minnesotans support Ukraine, a democracy, not its bully neighbor, Russia. He is apparently an admirer of “strong men” who take what they want.
We do not support the power to jail Dr. Fauci without charges.The only reason we do not have well more than a million Covid deaths is Fauci, who deflated the village idiot’s nonsensical ideas of Covid. Remember Trump wanted full pews Easter 2020 and said Covid would magically go away.
I could go through his other thinking, but as the Republican leader suggests is ideas do nothing for his constituents. With limited government, rural America has less to work with. Help his neighbors or give billionaires tax cuts. His priority is clear and wrong.
This legislative session is seeing Republicans and Democrats making deals to make our state a better place to live and do business. We are consistently among the top rated states in the country. He wants to undo all those accomplishments. No thanks!
Let’s ditch the term “strongman” and start calling it a “Daddy figure”. These Daddy figures gain support from those who just want Daddy to fix everything and make it all better.
Great, “someone in the mold of U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky or U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio.” In other words, an anti-science, anti-education, treasonous, Putin puppet who is no more aimed at the best interests of Minnesotans or the United States. Just what we need.
It’s interesting that you would mention a doctor and a teacher as examples of people who are “anti-science” and “anti-education.” I would tend to side with them over a lipstick salesperson like Betty McCollum or a “community activist” like Omar. And as for being a “Putin puppet,” as a veteran I’m concerned that Biden has given Ukraine about a third of our missile supply and more money than is budgeted for the VA all because he’s taken millions from their corrupt government for years and feels he owes them for their covering up the Biden crime family .
What Frank is saying, more civily, is that you are expressing support and admiration for a worthless scumbag that permitted the brutal rape of young men under his charge. You should feel ashamed of yourself for that position, but won’t, because you are more concerned with political advantage than actual people and their welfare.
At some point, I’m assuming you will reveal what you think the proper US policy should be if China attempts to invade Taiwan…..
Don’t forget how Jim Jordan “molded” young vulnerable men at Ohio State.
Who’s groomin’ who?
Now, now, let’s be fair about this. It’s not like Gym Jordan had a relationship with an underage girl whom he transported across state lines.
While I’m happy to see some of the state’s Republicans adopt the circular firing squad model more typical of Democrats, and I’m also happy to see someone running for office who’s more than casually concerned about the cost of health care, Munson is otherwise a standard-issue reactionary with the usual right-wing conspiracy-oriented view of both the world and public policy. Unfortunately, he’s fairly typical of the increasingly dysfunctional Republican Party. No one who favors forcing women to bear children should be in a position of influence at any level, and the House “Freedom Caucus” is little more than a small gang of neofascists very unhappy with a world of political, social and ethnic diversity. They’d like a return to the 1920s, please, when people of color knew their place and no one challenged the position of white males at the top of the societal heap. It’s no wonder there are Republicans who have no enthusiasm for him as a candidate – he basically wants society to go back to 100 years ago.
Egads! Who would want the the endorsement of a creep like Jim Jordan! For all the talk about groomers by the extremists in the GOP, you’d think they’d shun Jordan, and anyone who sought his endorsement.
It looks like both Repub options for the district are rightwing Trumpite extremists who are running to create chaos in the House of Representatives and paralyze the federal government as the country works to emerge from the pandemic. Both are anti-choice extremists who will celebrate the reversal of Roe; both appear dedicated to the disastrous concept of “gun rights”. Their grasp on macroeconomics (like all “conservatives”) is essentially non-existent. I find the claim that one would be willing to certify Dem election victories while the other wouldn’t to be highly dubious; both will do whatever a Repub House leadership decides to do in 2024.
It sounds like Munson would be delighted to be a House member of the Putin 11, the eleven senate Repubs who just voted against necessary military aid to support Ukraine, effectively aiding Putin’s war of annihilation. Both would work to defund the boogeyman of “Big Gub’mint”, while passing more fiscally ridiculous tax cuts; tax cuts being the “conservative” cure for every economic ailment. Fiscal responsibility, indeed. The idea that one extremist is a “problem solver” while the other is not sounds comic when measured against reality.
So basically neither Munson or Finstad should be considered “serious” candidates for important public office. To a non-rightwing extremist, the charges they are leveling sound like the Pot calling the Kettle Black.