News Releases
The Supreme Court Is Back in Session—And Must Rein In Presidential Power Before It’s Too Late
National & Minnesota
As the United States Supreme Court begins its new session, it does so under the long shadow of Trump v. United States, decided July 1, 2024. That landmark ruling, which expanded presidential immunity, has dangerously shifted the balance of power within our federal government. We, as guardians of the democratic order, recognize that the Court, having already emboldened the executive branch, must now reckon with the consequences—and course correct before constitutional order gives way to chaos.
At the center of this crisis stands Donald J Trump (R), who has repeatedly asserted unilateral federal authority—from deploying National Guard troops in defiance of local leaders to issuing executive orders that bypass governors and mayors alike. These actions represent more than just political theater—they challenge the very structure of American federalism. They flout the US Constitution, which likely Trump has never even read.
A Threat to Federalism: What’s at Stake?
Our Constitution was designed to divide power not only between the three branches of government but also between the federal government and the states. This structure, known as federalism, ensures that no single authority may dominate the entire system. The concept of “dual federalism”—in which federal and state governments operate independently within their respective spheres—has been a foundational pillar of conservative legal thought for decades.
Ironically, Ronald Reagan (R), considered by sycophants to be a lion of the conservative movement, was among the strongest proponents of this doctrine. Throughout his presidency, he championed the principle that the federal government ought not to interfere in matters traditionally reserved to the states. He decried federal overreach and emphasized the importance of local control in sectors such as education, transportation, and law enforcement.
In his 1981 Inaugural Address, Reagan declared:
“Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
Yet the “government” to which Reagan referred was not a duly elected state legislature or a democratically accountable local body—it was an overreaching federal bureaucracy, one that imposed itself upon state sovereignty. In stark contrast, Trump’s approach to governance—asserting dominance through federal force, bypassing state laws, and issuing executive mandates that defy local authority—is a direct repudiation of the federalist principles so fervently upheld by Reagan.
Revisiting Civil War Lessons
Our nation has confronted a moment of constitutional crisis before. During the American Civil War, federal authority was rightfully invoked to preserve the Union and to abolish the abhorrent institution of slavery—a system propped up under the guise of “states’ rights.” Then, the moral imperative was clear: liberty and human dignity were at stake.
Today, federal overreach is once again being wielded—but not in service of liberty. It is being used to undermine it. Particularly vulnerable are immigrant communities, many of whom have lived, worked, and contributed to this country for decades. Under Trump’s renewed influence, there are calls to revoke birthright citizenship as protected by the 14th Amendment, especially its cornerstone clause in Section 1:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Efforts to reinterpret this clause, and strip away legal protections from those born on our soil, reflect a dangerous ideology—one that seeks to redefine who counts as “American” and who does not. Such actions are not merely constitutionally suspect; they mirror the authoritarian logic wherein legal rights are not guaranteed by law but granted at the discretion of power.
At the heart of this movement are the so-called “Originalists”—a faction of constitutional interpreters who insist that the document must be read strictly as written in the late 18th century, often excluding the amendments and evolutions that have since expanded civil rights and liberties. Their rigidity risks freezing America in an outdated version of itself, one that neglects the growth and progress achieved through decades of amendment, activism, and adjudication.
The Role of the Supreme Court
We now find the Supreme Court standing at a constitutional crossroads. Will it continue to enable executive overreach under the pretense of immunity and national necessity? Or will it reassert its foundational role as a check on power, upholding the structure of governance intended by the Framers of the Constitution?
To fulfill its duty, the Court must move beyond narrow proceduralism and embrace a holistic understanding of the Constitution. Federalism is not a relic of the past—it is a living safeguard against despotism. When we permit one branch—or worse, one individual—to dominate without consequence, we erode the very foundation of our republic.
Conclusion: A Turning Point
This is not merely a legal juncture; it is a moral one. As the Supreme Court resumes its work, it must reflect not only on the letter of the law, but also on the spirit of the Constitution. Will it allow an imperial presidency to rise, in contradiction to Reagan’s cherished principle of dual federalism? Will it condone the federal suppression of state autonomy, in defiance of the Tenth Amendment? Or will it restore balance and accountability to our democratic system?
The answers to these questions will shape more than the legacy of this Court. They may well determine whether our democratic experiment endures—or whether it yields to the creeping autocracy it was created to resist.
Ongoing Interactions in the St Paul Mayoral Race
Minnesota Report
The race for Mayor in St Paul is heating up and in limited capacity the residents are showing varied levels of interest. Last night, candidates Melvin Carter III (DFL), Van Chen (DFL), Adam Dullinger (Yet to be self-identified), Kaohly Her (DFL) and Mike Hilborn (I) met at the Glory Dei Lutheran Church in Highland Park. The event hosted by FairVoteMN and a number of District Councils and featured the moderator Tane Danger, was a packed house, with approximately 300 people in attendance. The event was recorded by KMSP 9 for its YouTube Channel. The week before, it was a forum hosted by the Lexington Hamline District Council, which was not recorded, and all candidates were present except Dullinger. One highlight here, was Hilborn, made a succinct closing argument for himself saying, “Pick me because I’m awesome.”
Last night the debate opened with opening statements, and instead of the traditional answers we have heard in Ranked Choice Voting contests, most said pick me first, except Chen who said, “Pick me first and if not, pick me second. To which she received a number of outburst laughs.
The first question was about increasing property taxes, which is clearly the most important issue for city taxpayers. Danger asked, “What would you do to alleviate Property taxes?” There was a follow-up, with what areas would they seek to cut in order to not adversely impact property taxes. He then queried, “What are some of the changes we would see if you were Mayor? The candidates were ask to address what they would do for redevelopment of St Paul. Naturally, this brought about the discuss of crime and public safety, which each person had their take on.
And then the burning question about the Summit Avenue Regional Trail (SART) came up and the night got interesting. With Hilborn saying Summit was just fine as is, Her questioning the process, Dullinger saying it was good and we need more bike safe bike routes, Carter defending to process and the outcome and Chen discuss the pitting of the two sides, bicyclists and homeowners against one another, she supported opposition to the process and ultimately questioned whether-or-not this was a priority for this moment in time.
Speaking of Dullinger, during the SART conversation in the debate, this new urbanist, showed himself to be nonreflective, rude and disrespectful to others when he said off of mic at minute 1:15:24, “Such a Bullshit answer,” which in turn Her called him out, but misstated, saying she didn’t appreciate her words being referred to as a Batshit answer, when he was given the mic, he stupidly clarified he said Bullshit answer. It was a defining moment showing him to be a petulant child, whining to be able to ride his bike anywhere and everywhere safely. Its clear someone needs to grow up and learn some level of decorum, because this young man is not ready for prime time.
Editor’s Note: Honestly having viewed this issue closely, there is no need for an elevated bike lane on Summit, but a better solution would be to shift the bike lane to the inside area next to the curb, ban on street parking, or make the parking lane the next lane and then have the traffic lane furthest left. This solution is far more tenable and less costly, with a buffer zone between bikes and moving cars.
After the debate concluded, we thought, the one question never asked during a Ranked Choice Voting debate needed to be offered. Who is your second choice? We asked Dullinger first, and the little pissant, had the audacity to violate personal space and turning off the recording, and said his choice was probably Carter. Caveat: “Adam, ever touch my phone again your finger will be broken.” C&B Publisher Shawn Towle.
Hilborn said, “Probably Yan Chen, and Kaohly Her.” he later solidified his position with Yan Chen. Her has repeatedly, said she likes many of Chen’s ideas and of course Yan Chen is her second choice. Finally, Carter, again being too cute by half, and clearly is not comfortable considering the possibility of a loss said, “I’m undecided.”
We are hoping at some event someone will actually, ask the question and the clarity for all will be achieved. Specifically, because Carter actually has never had to deal with the idea of a single transferable vote, because he abtained at least a simple majority win. When we published the notorious “Gun Letter” we help solidify his victory in 2017. In 2021, he had no serious challengers. This time, it seems many believe, Melvin has had his chance(s). The situation brings to mind the misrepresentation now thought of as an old artificial adage, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” is a popular saying, but it is a misattribution to Albert Einstein and is more of a proverb than an actual clinical definition of insanity.”
In Carter’s case, he needs to acknowledge, not just that St Paul has problems that happened on his watch, but also problem cropped up that he provided either ignored, provided no reasonable response to, or acted too late. Often, while only playing head cheerleader, he fails to acknowledge the score of the game, and sorry, but not all is always sunshine in St Paul. Time for a Change.
Pam Bondi Draws Aim on Minnesota
National & Minnesota Report
The federal government’s authority to challenge sanctuary policies is rooted in its constitutional power over immigration, supported by the Supremacy Clause and federal immigration laws. This authority, however, is balanced by the Tenth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from “commandeering” states or localities to enforce federal law.
Constitutional principles
- Supremacy Clause: Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal laws as the “supreme Law of the Land”. Courts have consistently held that the federal government possesses “plenary power” (broad, exclusive authority) over the admission and removal of non-citizens. State or local policies that conflict with or undermine federal immigration law are therefore preempted and can be challenged by the federal government.
- 10th Amendment and Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the federal government cannot force, or “commandeer,” state and local officials to carry out federal regulatory schemes. This has led courts to rule that while local governments cannot obstruct federal agents, they also cannot be compelled to assist federal immigration enforcement by honoring immigration detainer requests.
- Spending Clause: Congress can use its spending power to influence state policies by attaching conditions to federal funding. However, the Supreme Court has set limits on this power, requiring that any funding conditions be clearly stated, related to the funding’s purpose, and not coercive. Federal attempts to withhold grants from sanctuary jurisdictions have been challenged in court, with some rulings invalidating the use of grant conditions for immigration enforcement.
This provision has limited applications with the universality of Republican control of the Federal government at the Executive, legislative and Judicial levels. This means the system enables the ability for Donald J Trump (R) as, to run roughshod over the Constitution and all of American citizens. There must be some sort of political revolt. Be it at the ballot box, in 2026, where hopefully America has awakened from its stupor and delivers a Democratically controlled House and Senate, with enough votes to impeach and convict the Great Orange Imbecile or ultimately in 2028, and trounce the Republicans completely.
Existing Federal Immigration Statutes
Federal laws passed by Congress empower the federal government to challenge sanctuary policies.
- Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): The INA outlines a comprehensive framework for immigration and is the primary statute federal officials use to argue for federal supremacy in immigration matters.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1373: This federal statute prohibits state and local governments from restricting officials from sending or receiving information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status to federal immigration authorities. The Department of Justice has challenged sanctuary policies that restrict information sharing, but court rulings on the constitutionality of this statute have been mixed.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1324: This law prohibits knowingly harboring or concealing undocumented immigrants, and federal officials have cited it to challenge sanctuary jurisdictions.
Executive Branch Actions
The executive branch, which includes the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), can use its authority to challenge sanctuary policies.
- Litigation: The DOJ can and has filed lawsuits against states and cities with sanctuary policies, arguing they are preempted by federal law or unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement.
- Executive Orders: Presidents have issued executive orders directing federal agencies to identify and take action against sanctuary jurisdictions, though some of these actions have been challenged in court.
These Executive Orders can be overturned by a new administration, unless Congress sees clear to limitations on the Presidency to do so.
Yesterday, the DOJ put out the following press release.
Justice Department Sues Minnesota Over Sanctuary Policies
Monday, September 29, 2025
WASHINGTON — Today, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, the City of St. Paul, Hennepin County, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna S. Witt over the State’s, Cities’, and County’s sanctuary city policies that interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws.
Not only are the sanctuary city policies illegal under federal law, but, as alleged in the complaint, Minnesota’s, Minneapolis’, St. Paul’s, and Hennepin County’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities results in the release of dangerous criminals from police custody who would otherwise be subject to removal, including illegal aliens convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking, onto the streets.
“Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “This Department of Justice will continue to bring litigation against any jurisdiction that uses sanctuary policies to defy federal law and undermine law enforcement.”
“Shielding illegal aliens from federal law enforcement is a blatant violation of the law that carries dangerous consequences,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Civil Division will continue to vigorously uphold the rule of law by holding sanctuary jurisdictions fully accountable.”
On her first day in office, Attorney General Bondi instructed the Department’s Civil Division to identify state and local laws, policies, and practices that facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impede lawful federal immigration operations. On August 5, 2025, Attorney General Bondi published a list of sanctuary jurisdictions, which included Minnesota, and vowed to bring litigation to end these policies nationwide. Today’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits brought by the Civil Division targeting illegal sanctuary city policies across the country, including in Boston, New York City, Rochester, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, and Los Angeles. Recently, the Department announced a new Memorandum of Understanding to fully collaborate with Nevada on immigration enforcement, and the Mayor of Louisville revoked the city’s sanctuary policy after the Justice Department threatened legal action.
In August, St Paul Joined Fresno, CA in Challenging Denial of Federal Funding
National & Minnesota Report
We have been wondering how much money St Paul is losing to the federal government. $262 million is the starting point. Seems like the city of St Paul as an employer could withhold and escrow the money they send to Washington, DC through the federal withholding’s and encourage other states to do the same.
SAINT PAUL – Today, Mayor Melvin Carter announced that Saint Paul joined a federal lawsuit led by the City of Fresno, Calif., seeking to stop the enforcement of unlawful executive orders that risk the loss of substantial grant funding for the City.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, among other agencies, have threatened to withhold, rescind, or cut grant funding from communities to force compliance with a presidential agenda, rather than the needs and priorities of local municipalities. This lawsuit also challenges attempts by political appointees to exercise discretion over who receives grant funding.
“We are taking decisive action to protect our access to critical funding that ensures our ability to administer programs that support the health, safety, and economic well-being of our community,” Mayor Carter said. “Once again, what our residents pay into the federal tax base must come back to benefit our community—not be weaponized for political gain.”
The City of Saint Paul relies on about $262 million in receivable federal funding to support critical investments in emergency response, infrastructure, housing, and public and social services—about $197.3 million of which is currently under contract. Of those dollars already under contract, roughly $144.6 million accounts for one-time capital investment projects and the remaining $52.6 million supports ongoing programs and department operations.
Another $64.9 million is in the post-award phase of establishing workplans and executing contracts. The city has also applied for an additional $64.2 million in federal grants.
Major initial impacts include:
- Unable to finalize contracts and distribute already-awarded funding for proven safety measures across 34 miles of High Injury Network and at over 70 intersections.
- Unable to apply for funding to replace the eastbound Kellogg Bridge, which is the City’s highest priority infrastructure improvement project.
- Unable to finalize contracts and distribute already-awarded funding to conduct an asset scan of City-owned properties, critical to establishing an asset management initiative that reimagines uses for unused or under-utilized real estate.
- Severely limiting capacity to invest in affordable housing, economic development, and neighborhood District Councils.
- Potential loss of year-round youth employment programs like Right Track, which serves youth from low-income neighborhoods and opens the door for internships.
“This action was necessary to prevent enforcement of coercive and unlawful conditions that violate the separation of powers and due process, and will cause irreparable harm to the City of Saint Paul and our residents,” said City Attorney Lyndsey Olson.
Protecting St. Paul: A Local Response to Federal Immigration Overreach
National & Minnesota Report
St Paul has a historical foundation with the Federal government which warrants us to learn from the Prohibition Era.
During Prohibition (1920–1933), St. Paul became infamous for its “O’Connor System” — an informal agreement between local officials against federal authorities. Under this arrangement:
Criminals were allowed to live in or pass through St. Paul if they agreed not to commit crimes within the city.
Local police deliberately limited information sharing or any cooperation with federal agents, prioritizing local peace over federal enforcement agendas.
While legally murky and ethically problematic, this shows that St. Paul has historically exercised autonomy in choosing how to cooperate (or not) with federal mandates when it believed local peace and governance were at stake.
Today, St. Paul can channel that same principle—local control to protect local interests—but within the legal boundaries of the Constitution and federalism.
St. Paul needs a legal framework and a reliance on local autonomy.
St. Paul can lawfully resist overreach by relying on:
- 10th Amendment & Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
- The federal government cannot force local law enforcement to detain or hold individuals for ICE or DHS.
- St. Paul police and city officials should not honor immigration detainers unless supported by a judicial warrant.
- Limit Cooperation Without Obstruction
- Federal agents can enforce federal laws, but St. Paul is not obligated to help.
This will effectively result enforce a “don’t ask, don’t share” policy where city employees do not collect or share immigration status unless required by law (as per 8 U.S.C. § 1373’s evolving interpretation).
How to Protect Federal Funding?
Under the Spending Clause, the federal government cannot impose coercive grant conditions unrelated to the purpose of the funds.
St. Paul is already suing over this issue.
Maintain the lawsuit with Fresno and expand it if needed.
Document all harm caused by federal threats to funding.
Lobby Congress to create legislation protecting sanctuary jurisdictions.
Plan of Action: A Six-Point Local Strategy
- Affirm Sanctuary Policies Through City Ordinance
- Strengthen local law that prohibits city employees (including police) from inquiring about immigration status.
- Create clear firewalls between city services and federal immigration enforcement.
- Establish a Legal Defense Fund
- Allocate city funds (or partner with nonprofits) to create a legal defense fund for immigrants and families facing ICE enforcement.
- Similar programs in cities like NYC have reduced deportation rates significantly.
In turn this establishes a need to:
- Train city employees on legal rights
- Provide mandatory training on the limits of federal power and how to interact with ICE without violating the law.
- Include housing inspectors, police, school employees, and health workers.
Appoint a Federal Compliance Review Task Force
By creating a local task force led by the City Attorney the city will be able to:
- Monitor federal interactions and report all activities.
- Ensure federal immigration enforcement does not violate constitutional rights.
- Advise city departments on compliance with court rulings.
Community Engagement & Transparency
Hold regular town halls and legal clinics in partnership with immigrant advocacy organizations.
Establish a hotline for residents to report ICE activity or unlawful detentions.
Intergovernmental Collaboration
Coordinate with other sanctuary jurisdictions (Minneapolis, Hennepin County, national partners like NYC and L.A.).
St. Paul needs to call upon other municipalities and in turn arshe resources, legal strategies, and media campaigns to amplify unified resistance.
The message is clear and should be framed in the following manner
- St. Paul faces a constitutional fight for local control.
- A moral imperative to protect all residents regardless of immigration status.
- A financial necessity, since the city’s $262 million in federal funds should not be leveraged as political punishment.
Conclusion: A Principled, Lawful Stand
St. Paul’s response should not be framed as defiance, but as a constitutionally grounded assertion of its rights under the Tenth Amendment. Just as it did during Prohibition—albeit more carefully and legally—St. Paul can choose not to be a passive enforcer of federal agendas that harm its communities.
By acting now, the city can create a model for other jurisdictions nationwide navigating the same legal and ethical challenges.
Walz Announces Reelection Bid
Minnesota Report
Today, Governor Tim Walz (DFL-MN) announced his unprecedented third term for office. He announced his reelection via a Youtube video. This effort will be a climb, but it might be easier if the Republicans nominate a weak candidate. Here are the current spate of candidates (10 Republicans and one gadfly DFL candidate) filed to contest Walz- Thomas Evenstad (R-MN), Scott Mitchell Jensen (R-MN), Jeff Johnson (R-MN), Adam J Kedrowski (R-MN), Brad Kohler (R-MN), Calvin Larson Jr (R-MN), Hannah P Nicollet (R-MN), Phillip Parrish (R-MN), Kendall Qualls (R-MN), Kristin Robbins (R-MN), Harley Swarm (R-MN) and Ole Savior (DFL-MN).
Initially, in 2018, Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson (R-MN) lost to Walz with 42.43% to 53.84%. In 2022, State Senator Dr Scott Jensen (R-MN) fell to with 44.61% compared to Walz’ 52.27%. These races have not been landslides by any measure.
This go round he will no longer have Lt Governor Peggy Flanagan (DFL-MN), since she is making her own bid for the US Senate. We are hearing a connection to Melissa Hortman’s district as a possible running mate in Brooklyn Park Mayor Hollies J. Winston (DFL). He has shown himself to be a forward thinking person, who has vigorously addressed crime in his community.
The climb will be uphill, but the slough will be a test of Walz’ personal mettle.
Reports of Russia Drones in Poland is a Significant Threat to NATO
International, National & Minnesota Report
Major international news outlets — including The Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and Reuters — are reporting on a serious security incident in Eastern Europe: Yesterday Poland temporarily shut down four of its airports — Warsaw Chopin, Modlin, Rzeszów–Jasionka, and Lublin — due to a significant airspace violation involving Russian drones.
The drones, reportedly launched from Belarus, are believed to be Geran-style reconnaissance UAVs, potentially Geran-2 (also known as “Gerbera”) variants. Unlike the explosive-laden Iranian Shahed drones used in Ukraine, these models appear to have been equipped primarily for surveillance purposes — likely to test NATO’s readiness and response thresholds.
The Polish Air Force responded swiftly, scrambling fighter jets and successfully intercepting and shooting down several of the drones. Notably, Poland received unexpected support from Belarusian sources who reportedly jammed the drones’ GPS signals — suggesting internal tensions or a covert gesture of de-escalation. Additionally, Italian aircraft were deployed to provide air support, highlighting the coordinated readiness among NATO allies.
This incursion underscores growing concerns about Russian attempts to probe NATO defenses, and it may serve as a strategic test of alliance cohesion. As such, it renews calls for NATO members — including the United States — to invoke Article 5, (the collective defence clause, stating that an armed attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all, triggering each other member to assist the attacked nation) consultations to address the security of member states under threat.
This moment also intensifies diplomatic pressure regarding ongoing negotiations with Russia. There should be no ambiguity: Ukraine’s territorial integrity must remain non-negotiable, including Crimea. Concessions to Moscow would only embolden further aggression.
At this pivotal moment, US leadership must project resolve. Donald J Trump (R) should demonstrate a serious commitment to NATO’s collective defense principles and present a credible deterrent posture. America’s credibility on the world stage demands more than rhetoric; it demands action, unity, and clarity.
Walz Expected to Announce His Campaign Plans Next Week
Minnesota Report
Governor Tim Walz (DFL-MN) will announce his intentions for 2026 next week, so far there are not any early indicators, other than the veritable weakness of the field of Republicans, which have not won a statewide election since 2006.
The New House Leader is Zack Stephenson
Minnesota Report
After multiple rounds of voting, Rep Zack Stephenson (DFL–35A, Coon Rapids) has been elected to lead the DFL House Caucus. Whether he will serve as House Minority Leader or co-lead the chamber alongside Rep Harry Niska (R–31A, Ramsey) remains to be determined — a question that now rests in the hands of voters in the late Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman’s former district, HD 34B.
A special election for the pivotal seat will be held on November 4th, and the outcome could shift the balance of power in the Minnesota House. The race features Xp Lee, a state employee and current Brooklyn Park City Council member running as the DFL candidate, and Ruth Bittner, a Republican real estate agent also based in Brooklyn Park.
Stephenson, a lawyer by training, is widely regarded as a skilled legislative strategist. A close confidant of Hortman, he played a central role in advancing key policy priorities during her tenure — most notably leading the effort to legalize adult-use cannabis in Minnesota. His election signals both continuity and competence within the DFL ranks.
One particular aspect of his leadership we applaud is his intention to continue Hortman’s suburban-forward strategy, a cornerstone of DFL prior legislative success and an approach we have long supported. Now, in an increasingly polarized political landscape, strong suburban leadership rooted in pragmatism and policy discipline remains essential for effective governance in Minnesota.
Eight-Week Campaign Finance Reports in St Paul
Minnesota Report
With the conclusion of St. Paul’s pre-election campaign finance reporting period, the “money primary” has officially closed. As expected, Mayor Melvin Carter III (DFL) leads the field in fundraising — but a closer look at the data reveals more than just raw numbers. His support appears to be heavily institutional, powered by establishment backers and deep political roots.
Carter 8-week pre-election report.
Mayor Melvin Carter III (DFL)
|
Total contributions under $50 |
$5,784.40 |
|
Total contributions equal to or over $50 |
$210, 385.60 |
|
Expenditures |
$41,658.22 |
|
Account Balance (as of report end date) |
$212,715.77 |
Carter’s hosted a major fundraiser on September 9th at the home of his parents — former Ramsey County Commissioner, now Metropolitan Council member, Toni Carter (DFL) and retired St. Paul police officer Melvin Carter II. Based on the sponsor list, additional financial momentum is expected in future reports.
As an incumbent, Carter’s dominance in fundraising comes as no surprise. In a city where individual campaign contributions are capped at $1,000 per person, achieving six-figure totals requires broad and motivated networks — something Carter clearly retains. Yet, his financial strength contrasts sharply with growing dissatisfaction from many residents, particularly after his recent Budget Address, which proposed a 5.3% increase in the property tax levy.
Critics argue this increase unfairly burdens low- and middle-income homeowners, especially in economically challenged neighborhoods, while downtown St. Paul continues to struggle with visible decay and stalled revitalization. Notably, the mayor moved out of the city’s core several years ago, relocating to Ward 7 — a decision that some residents interpret as distancing from the city’s most pressing urban problems.
We encourage you to view our parody of the devastation in downtown of St Paul.
Yan Chen (DFL-St Paul)
|
Total contributions under $50 |
$906 |
|
Total contributions equal to or over $50 |
$156,203 |
|
Expenditures |
$115,338 |
|
Account Balance (as of report end date) |
$28,442 |
While Chen‘s eight week pre-election report shows strong financial activity, there are notable inconsistencies between reported contributions and expenditures — suggesting the likely presence of self-financing, which has yet to be fully detailed. A prominent donor on record is former City Council member Jane Prince.
As a non-establishment candidate, Chen faces a familiar challenge: fundraising without access to large political networks, donor lists, or party infrastructure. The uphill nature of her campaign is made steeper by the city’s political culture — one where outsider candidates, particularly women of color without extensive political lineage, face systemic hurdles.
Still, her performance so far demonstrates serious commitment, if not yet electoral traction.
Kaohly Her (DFL-St. Paul)
|
Total contributions under $50 |
$1,123.60 |
|
Total contributions equal to or over $50 |
$62,955.00 |
|
Expenditures |
$12,112.50 |
|
Account Balance (as of report end date) |
$63,082.10 |
Though a late entrant to the race, state Representative Kaohly Her is already making a significant impact — aided by extensive support from the Capitol’s well-wired donor base. Her pre-election report reads like a “who’s who” of the Minnesota lobbying world, with notable contributions from:
Gavin Hanson, Amanda Jansen, Allyson Hartle, Andrew Kozak, Amanda Duerr, Robyn Rowen, Ward Einess, Courtney Jasper, Barbara Cox, Amy Walstien, Rochelle Westlund, Sonnie Elliot, Patrick Connolly, Bill Harper, Brian Rice, Jerry Seck, Matthew Freeman, John Kingrey, Paul Winkelaar, Nancy Haas, Tom Poul — among others.
Her eight week pre-election report
With deep connections and a polished political presence, Her appears well-positioned to hold her own, even as she faces off against her former employer, Mayor Carter.
Mike Hilborn (Republican)
|
Total contributions under $50 |
$972.41 |
|
Total contributions equal to or over $50 |
$21,229.21 |
|
Expenditures |
$21,486.29 |
|
Account Balance (as of report end date) |
$714.63 |
As the sole Republican in the race, Mike Hilborn has struggled to gain financial momentum. He has neither leaned into self-financing nor mounted a visible fundraising push. In a city as deeply blue as St. Paul, where Democratic candidates dominate citywide contests, Hilborn’s campaign appears more symbolic than competitive — barring an unexpected shift in voter sentiment.
Hilborn eight week pre-election report.
Adam Dullinger (DSC – Democratic Socialist Caucus)
No campaign finance report has been filed by Adam Dullinger. In private conversations, he has indicated that he does not intend to spend more than $750, raising questions about whether this figure includes the $500 candidate filing fee. His grassroots campaign appears more issue-driven than electoral in nature.
Conclusion: Dollars Raised, But Questions Remain
Mayor Carter’s formidable fundraising shows the power of incumbency, but his critics — both inside and outside City Hall — argue money alone cannot paper over the policy frustrations felt in many corners of St. Paul. Her and Chen present distinct alternatives, each with different strengths and limitations. Hilborn and Dullinger may find resonance among niche constituencies, but as of now, the race remains Carter’s to lose — unless public discontent coalesces around a credible challenger with staying power.
As always, in politics and in St. Paul, money talks — but voters ultimately decide who gets to lead.
Trump Polling Numbers in Key States Falter
National and Minnesota Report Yesterday, articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post spelled good news for the former Vice-President Joe Biden’s campaign (D). https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/upshot/poll-2020-biden-battlegrounds.html...
Senate Bonding Then and Now (2018 v 2020)
Minnesota Report Two years ago, the Republican controlled State Senate brought forward it’s Capitol Investment Bill, which failed to pass on a party line vote of 34-33, seven votes short of the 2/3rds majority of 41 votes. What is interesting I what the Republicans...
Mayo Clinic Challenging Trump’s Push of Malaria Drugs
Minnesota Report The Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN has released a medical advisory in direct response to Donald J Trump's (R) call of the use of hydroxychloroquine and erythromycin.Guidance on patients at risk of drug-induced sudden cardiac death from off-label...
Minnesota Department of Health COVID-19 Page
Minnesota Report On Friday, Governor Tim Walz (DFL-MN) along with Commissioner Jan Malcolm released the State of Minnesota’s comprehensive COVID-19 page on the Department of Health’s Website. Additionally, the MN House also has a page which provides more and...
Trump’s Continued Call for Hydroxychloroquine
National Report In spite of not having scientific support for his position Donald J Trump (R) continues to put forward his contention that the use of Hydroxychloroquine a drug for Malaria and Lupus and Erythromycin a drug for bacterial infections as a panacea to the...
Walz Executive Orders During Pandemic
Minnesota Report As we are in the midst of the second week of the Stay at Home Executive Order 20-20 more orders are coming from Governor Tim Walz (DFL-MN) to stipulate what options are available to our state’s citizens. Today, Executive Order 20-25 Authorizing Peace...
The Coming of the Four Horsemen
If you want to be memorable in Minnesota State Capitol politics it is good if you are referred to as something other than your name. It is often helpful when a term or a phrase can be applied to your, group, issue or initiative. If you want to be known as something...
First Paid Political Advertisement Ran Here 21 Years Ago
There were a number of firsts that occurred in the 1998 Governor's race besides the My Three Sons Primary and the election of third-party candidate Jesse Ventura, In 1997, the Ted Mondale for Governor campaign took out, what is known as the First Paid Political...
2018 House State Fair Poll
Minnesota Report We at Checks & Balances are continuing our tradition of publishing the State Fair Polls found at the State Fair booths in the Education Building. Again, as we have said before, these provide an insight into the mindset and the issues of interest...
2018 Senate State Fair Poll
Minnesota Report State Senate 2016 State Fair Poll Questions (Choose one answer per question) Demographics Residence Minneapolis/St. Paul Rural Suburban Regional hub of at least 40,000 people (Rochester, Duluth, St. Cloud, Mankato, Moorhead) Another state No...
Candidates Wolgamott and Ek are Each, Seeking a Shot at Redemption
Minnesota Report In December of 2005, the MN Supreme Court Ruled House Candidate Sue Ek (R-MN) ineligible as a candidate for the House seat 15B, do to her failure to reside in the district 60-days prior to the filing period. This means the highest court in our state,...
Speaking of Urdahl, One of His Books is Being Turned into a Movie
Minnesota Report Capitol observers might be familiar with the fact, Dean Urdahl (R-16A, Grove City) is a writer of historical fiction based on the Civil War era. The first book in his Uprising Saga series, Uprising is set to be on the small screen offered by one of...
Leadership Shuffles
Minnesota Report First, it was the rapid one-week ouster of Republican Party Chair Jennifer Carnahan, then the announcement by Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka (R-09, Nisswa) leaving the leadership post and not seeking reelection, followed by the more surprising...
The Best Example of the Legislative Chasm: Bonding Bill
Minnesota Report DFLers and Republicans are at odds over whether or not a Bonding Bill is a Jobs Bill. The two sides are also at loggerheads over whether or not long-term spending through bonds is a prudent fiscal decision. The cost of spending for a government backed...
Legislative Session Ends with a Flatulence in a Wind Funnel or FWF
Minnesota Report When competing political ideologies are at play, the ability to achieve consensus is a far way island, and reaching it, is a distant, remote and implausible likelihood. The reason being political people are hard-pressed to see beyond their own vested...
Subscribe to Checks and Balances
