It’s a familiar part of campaign season: negative mailings that accuse opponents of voting wrong or committing other nefarious acts.
Some emerge organically from the lives and votes of elected officials, many of whom take hundreds of votes, not all of them popular. But others are the result of planning, orchestrated efforts often set up long before an election, forcing a politician to take a “bad vote” that can be deployed come campaign season.
This is the story of one such vote — and one such negative campaign mailer. Call it Anatomy of Campaign Hit Lit.
The mailer was sent to voters in District 38B, the suburban east metro district where DFLer Ami Wazlawik is trying to defend the seat she took from Republicans in 2018. She faces GOP nominee Elliot Engen.
“When violent rioters burned down businesses, Ami Wazlawik stood with the criminals,” the front of the mailer says. On the back: “Ami Wazlawik agreed with the rioters and voted to allow our cities to defund our police.” It was mailed by the Republican Party of Minnesota and the House Republican Campaign Committee.
Another common feature of these hit pieces are footnotes with citations that support the claim. Sometimes it is a news article. Other times it is a record of a vote taken. In this case, the citation is “HJ 242, SS1, 6/18/20.” It would take an insider’s insider to be able to decipher that notation, but what it references is the House Journal, page 242, from the first special session of the Minnesota Legislature held on June 18, 2020.
[image_caption]A detail of the mailer featuring the citation.[/image_caption]
It depends on your political party, apparently, and how you interpret a series of actions on the floor of the Minnesota House of Representatives. On the agenda that day was the House DFL caucus’ response to the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis and their stated desire to reform policing and criminal justice. The bill, Senate File 104, was a Senate title but had House DFL reform language. It would pass on a party line vote, but was not agreed to by the GOP-controlled Senate, and it did not become law.
During the hours that the bill was being considered and debated, the GOP minority offered many amendments. Early on, Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, tried to amend the bill to prohibit cities from defunding or disbanding police departments unless they had first contracted with another police agency to provide public safety services.
Franson cited politician statements and news coverage out of Minneapolis that supported defunding the police department and repurposing money to other non-police public safety concepts. While such changes have not passed, House and Senate DFL members as well as Gov. Tim Walz tried to distance themselves from those demands. During the debate, Rep. Carlos Mariani, the St. Paul DFLer and lead on the police accountability bill, said “nothing in this bill disbands the police.”
But Republicans in the House and Senate had been raising the issue, citing local officials’ calls for it or saying that they would never agree to such a thing whether it was proposed in the Legislature or not.
Rep. Jamie Becker-Finn, DFL-Roseville, made a motion to have the Franson amendment ruled out of order, as it wasn’t “germane” to the underlying bill since it amended a section of statute that wasn’t referenced in the bill; such amendments would violate House rules.
House Speaker Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, ruled that the Franson amendment was out of order and the House then rebuffed a GOP move to overrule the speaker’s decision on a party line vote.
A note here about House procedure and the politics at play: One of the games played in Legislatures, obvious only to most insiders, is to offer amendments that everyone knows will fail. And while both parties do it, it is more common among members of whatever party is in the minority: While they have little control over which bills are presented, they can offer amendments. And though many amendments are offered to make bills better — or at least more palatable to the member offering it — others are meant to force opposition lawmakers to take recorded votes that might look bad, especially in campaign mailings.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]House Speaker Melissa Hortman[/image_caption]
But during the 2020 special session of the Minnesota Legislature, those rules were suspended in order to allow bills to be debated, amended and passed on the same day. That made the floor action a little less predictable and required both parties to respond on-the-fly to amendments.
That’s what happened in this case.
Later in the debate over the policing bill, House Deputy Minority Leader Ann Neu, R-North Branch, offered another amendment to do what the Franson amendment had tried.
“A home rule charter or statutory city or town may not disband, abolish or defund the entity’s police department unless the local unit of government has entered into an agreement with a home rule charter or statutory city, town or the sheriff to furnish police services,” read the Neu amendment.
Hortman’s response: “It looks really familiar.”
No point of order was raised and the amendment was allowed to proceed, as was the DFL’s response: an amendment to the amendment that moved to delete everything after the word “unless” in the Neu language and insert instead, “it has made alternate arrangements to provide for public safety in that home rule charter or statutory city or town.”
Asked by Rep. Peggy Scott, R- Andover, what alternative means, Becker-Finn said it could include using mental health professionals to respond to cases where a disturbed person triggered a call for help.
It was that amendment that came to a vote, and it was that amendment that Wazlawik and other now-targeted DFL incumbents voted yes on, on a party-line vote. Afterward, Neu withdrew the now-amended amendment without having it voted upon.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt[/image_caption]
“Because that issue is so hot in the media right now and there’s been so much conversation about it, we thought it was appropriate that we just all go on record and take a vote to say we don’t think it’s right,” Daudt said. “Or, in the case that you do think it’s right and you vote the other way, you go on record saying a city can abolish their police department and put in something that’s not law enforcement.”
The yes vote by DFL members was on an amendment that ultimately did not make it into the bill — a bill that did not ultimately pass into law. Later, during the July special session, a compromise bill on police reform was passed by the House and Senate.
So is the GOP mailing a fair hit — or a stretch?
Compare for yourself:
This is what was voted on: “A home rule charter or statutory city or town may not disband, abolish or defund the entity’s police department unless it has made alternate arrangements to provide for public safety in that home rule charter or statutory city or town.”
And this, again, is how the mailing interprets that vote: “When violent rioters burned down businesses, Ami Wazlawik stood with the criminals.” And, “Ami Wazlawik agreed with the rioters and voted to allow our cities to defund our police.”
And that’s how a calculated legislative procedure in June becomes a negative campaign mailer in September and October.
Sure, this kind of attack is a dishonest smear. But the Minneapolis council’s “defund the police” nonsense was just a gift to Republicans everywhere. Reform the police. Improve the police. Do the actual things that the defund the police movement is talking about. But think about the marketing and politics needed to get there.
“…that’s how a calculated legislative procedure in June becomes a negative campaign mailer in September and October…” It’s also a clear example of the basic dishonesty that too often is central to political campaigns. In this case, the dishonesty is Republican, and I confess I’ve seen it more often from Republican operatives (Tom Emmer and Jennifer Carnahan have little or no shame, much like the Party’s titular leader in the Oval Office), but while I can’t cite specifics (others will do that for me, I’d guess), it seems likely that DFL operatives in Minnesota have done much the same thing. Fortunately, at least in this instance, I’ve already mailed in my absentee ballot, and it has already been accepted, so any campaign literature sent to me, not to mention media advertising, whether electronic or print, and from either party, is wasted time and money.
Thank you for this clear explanation of the process, the intention, the tactics, and the result. The Republicans’ twist on this matter obviously claims this vote was something it was *not* but there’s probably no way for Rep Wazlawik to expose the sham in a way that most voters would understand, or even try to. Seems it would be even harder to unravel this contortion than it was to create it.
I have to wonder if, when the DFL legislators go through a similar ruse, it is “reported” so as to quite as blatantly distort the reality of what happened. Sadly, the answer is probably Yes.
I have serious problems with ugly, incredibly untrue political mailings & ads. First, the massive amts of $$$$ spent on them cb used for so many useful & worthwhile efforts that actually help people. Second, they drag down society mentally and emotionally and to the point where no one can talk with each other anymore, let alone reach consensus and work together. Third, it seems obvious that those who resort to such demeaning tactics bring nothing else to the table. They simply want a ‘win’ and they don’t care how they get it or who they malign in the process. So the Q then becomes: why would any honest, sincere citizen vote for anyone who behaves in such disgusting ways? Finally, if you think some MN ads are nasty come to GA. In the last month before the election the onslaught is incessant and the ads are filled with lies, hatred, fears, and the words ocialism and communism. My jaw drops every time. I’ve started to turn the TV off cuz I just can’t deal. Our country is being ripped apart by both Covid and by sleazy, smarmy types. It is well past time for us all to stand together and say: enough already!!! Reasonable thinking adults need to wrest back control. So vote carefully and thoughtfully. Much is on the line. Vote for those who work with others and treat everyone with respect. Those who understand the meaning of public service, and oaths to protect and serve. Not insult and injure the competition and rip off constituents for their own personal gain:(
So, the succinct answer is, the GOP set a trap for the DFL, and they took the bait.
She didn’t actually vote to allow cities to defund the police, but she voted against a bill that would have barred them from doing so.
The ad uses somewhat deceptive language, but the thrust is true.
I’d think most conservatives would applaud her vote in favor of local control.
But then there is little about the modern GOP that is conservative.
The City Council took 1.1million dollars from police to give to “violence interrupters”. With the current crime spree going on in Minneapolis, not enough interruption of violence is occurring. If anyone believes Minneapolis is in a better place than last May they need to take a drive down Lake street. Again, you get the city you vote for. Minneapolis has been run by DFL for 50 years.
“Minneapolis has been run by DFL for 50 years.”
And have never had any control over the police. The MPD doesn’t even respect the chief much less the mayor, so any calls for reform are laughed at along with any calls for accountability. It may not be so rosy in Minneapolis right now but the residents are optimistic that real change is finally coming.
Yes, Minneapolis city officeholders tend to be DFLers or Greens. That is likely because the GOP has abandoned the cities and taken up social positions calculated to appeal to rural voters.
I live in 38B, have been a campaign volunteer for Ami Wazlawik both this cycle and in 2018 when she won the race. She’s the subject noted in this article about a hit job mailer from the Republican caucus.
How unfortunate this would be the focus of an election cycle that has become nasty. Seems rather sleezy by Kurt Daubt. But then the caucus keeps voting on the emergency powers of the governor, to say they did it.
MinnPost focused on this House race in a previous article. Constituents in 38B deserve better than this to consider candidates, deserve better in vetting reasonable candidates, deserve better in running an honest and open campaign.
A terrific piece, Peter, but you buried the lede. I do that all the time. A better one would be:
“The House Republican Caucus misleads in a campaign hit piece against an east-metro DFLer.”
Thanks for putting some sunshine on this nefarious practice, Peter. This kind of dishonesty causes disrespect for the political process. It’s win at all costs.
As a mental health professional who responds to calls, let me just say, politicians on all sides these days scare me. Seriously you are failing for the most part. Please no more virtue signaling and one liner ads and statements. It’s not about you. It should be required that there be at least two 1 hour debates with 5 minute answers by each candidate that outline positions or written position papers. As those of us on the ground like to say, ‘who wrote this law?’ Yep these are the people we are sending to to make laws. Please people we need functional adults in politics.
Good article. Now do one on one of the many lit pieces slamming Republicans on education or the environment.
The DFL are masters of the procedural vote and Alliance for a Better Minnesota, which exclusively backs DFL candidates, spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each election on very similar mailings.