Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• <br />Testimony of Professor David Schultz, Hamline <br />University before the Senate IIection Laws Committee <br />on Initiative and Referendum <br />March 9, 2000 <br />Chairman Marty and Members of <br />the Senate IIection Laws Committee: <br />My name is David Schultz and I am a professor in the Graduate School of Public Administration and <br />Management at Hamline Universitywhere I leach, among other things, a course in Government Ethics. <br />I am also an adjunct professor of law at the University of Minnesota where I teach a class on election <br />law. <br />I am here to testify against a proposal for a constitutional amendment to permit initiative and <br />referendum in the state of Minnesota. <br />Introduction <br />Initiative and referendum are often presented by its supporters as tools of populism that let the people <br />decide. Unfortunately, for the most part, initiative and referendum have not been tools of the people <br />but another way for big money and special interests to thwart the will of the people. <br />Money Spent for Initiatives <br />and Referenda Cannot be limited <br />One lesson many of ns have Teamed over the last 25 years since Watergate is how excessive money <br />inthe political systemhas a corrosive impact upon the political process. Recognizing that impact, over <br />the last 25 years Minnesota has enacted significant legislation to limit the impact that money plays in <br />the political process. Were initiative and referendum enacted, these campaign finance laws would <br />become moot. Why? <br />In its 1978 decision First ~~'ational Bank i~. Bellotti the United State Supreme Court declared that <br />money on ballot initiatives was core political speech and that efforts to place limits on the amomrt of <br />money spent or contributed for these purposes 'vas unconstitational. More importantly, the Court <br />stated in Bellotti that limits on corporate spending violated the First Amendment. <br />The importance of Bellottr for Mnuiesota is twofold. First, were initiative and referendum enacted, <br />the state coiild not limit the amount of money spent by any party. Second, while Minnesota has had <br />a ban on corporate political spending dating back over 80 years, that ban could not be applied to ballot <br />initiatives. Hence, adoption of initiative and referendum would open au enormous hole in out existing <br />