For what it’s worth, from a Conservative elected official’s standpoint.
Not saying it’s right,not saying it’s wrong- just Shari g to help w clarity from one angle.
Eight reasons to vote against the lottery amendment
There is one constitutional amendment on the ballot this November that seeks to renew and extend an amendment passed originally in 1988 directing proceeds from the Minnesota Lottery into a fund used “for the public purpose of protection, conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the state’s air, water, land, fish, wildlife, and other natural resources.” If this year’s amendment simply extended the current system, I would consider recommending approval. But of course, the DFL legislature couldn’t help themselves and the new amendment will increase the appropriation, remove legislative oversight and create a grant program to give money to non-profits based on “equity.” What could go wrong?
None of these changes will be spelled-out on the ballot this November — it’s all included in what’s called “enacting language.” The question voters will see is all about clean drinking water, parks, trails, lakes, rivers, rainbows and unicorns:
“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to protect drinking water sources and the water quality of lakes, rivers, and streams; conserve wildlife habitat and natural areas; improve air quality; and expand access to parks and trails by extending the transfer of proceeds from the state-operated lottery to the environment and natural resources trust fund, and to dedicate the proceeds for these purposes?”
Who would be against clean water in our lakes and streams?
Here are eight reasons to vote “no” on extending this funding.
They are creating a new community (DEI) grant process
The new language creates a community grant program that will receive 1.5% of the lottery trust fund each year. These grants must be given to people “that are overburdened or underserved,” which is familiar code language that allows liberals to funnel money to their favorite non-profits serving their core constituencies. Fraud and waste in non-profit grant-making has been the hallmark of the Walz administration and if this amendment passes, look for more cronyism, corruption and fraud with public money.
To hand out these grants to the “community,” the amendment creates a Community Grant Advisory Council heavily stacked with Native American representation. Once again, the 100,000 members of the eleven Minnesota Indian tribes will have a disproportionate influence over taxpayer funds that should benefit all 5.7 million citizens. Four members of the council must be Ojibwe or Dakota and four members must be “Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, or Pacific Islander or as members of a community of color.” That means at least eight of the eleven members of the council will represent ethnic and racial minorities.
This reason alone is enough to vote against the entire amendment.
2. The legislature will have no control over the Community Grant Advisory Council
An estimated $25 million a year will be granted to community non-profits under this plan with no scrutiny or accountability from the elected legislature. That’s an unprecedented amount of power for an appointed body.
3. Lottery funded projects are a consistent source of Golden Turkey award nominees
Because the money is there and must be allocated for these constitutionally dedicated purposes, sometimes the normal scrutiny and discretion of the legislative process aren’t followed. A lot of the funding is handed out to state agencies and quasi-government organizations like the State Arts Board. These organizations then award grants to individuals and small groups to carry out projects that meet the mission of the funds.
This multi-layered grant-making process is how we end up with silly and wasteful expenditures that would never make it through the legislative process on merit. Three such examples have made it into the finals of our Golden Turkey Awards:
The legislature sent $186,000 from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF) to the Natural Resources Research Institute in Duluth “to determine current distribution and habitat associations of northern and southern flying squirrels to fill key knowledge gaps in flying squirrel status in Minnesota.”
The Legacy Fund, through a grant from the Minnesota Humanities Center, set aside $1,000 of your money for a woman to host a hands-on climate mapping workshop where participants create maps of their personal emotional terrain of climate change.
The Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund (ENRTF), through the LCCMR, through the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), gave $900,000 to the Lawns to Legumes program to give homeowners $350 grants not to mow their lawns in an effort to improve habitat for bees.
With the new DEI council handing out grants to non-profits, the Golden Turkey committee will find even more opportunities for nominations from the ENRTF.
4. They are increasing funding for these projects
The allocation each year increases from 5.5% of the principal in the trust fund to 7%. The trust fund balance is currently around $1.9 billion.
5. They snuck in language to prohibit funding for wastewater treatment
There used to be a healthy debate about whether wastewater treatment projects were eligible for funding from the lottery. Republicans argue that helping cities clean up wastewater is one of the best ways to protect drinking water sources and water quality, as the amendment calls for. Democrats have fought these expenditures because they use up funding that could go to their pet projects (see above) to protect the environment.
The new language ends this debate in favor of the big spenders by prohibiting spending “related to the construction, repair, improvement, or operation of any facility or system that processes wastewater but may be used to pay for research related to wastewater.” We don’t need to research wastewater. We simply need to fund the hundreds of projects around the state that are shovel ready.
6. It’s being funded by the usual liberal suspects
As my colleague Bill Glahn writes about here, the usual liberal suspects are lining up to fund this ballot initiative. The largest single donor to the fund is Alida Messinger, the Rockefeller-oil heiress and former wife of the former governor Mark Dayton. She gave $200,000. Another $200,000 was donated by the left-wing advocacy group Conservation Minnesota. Sometimes all you need to know about a vote is who is supporting the other side.
7. Constitutionally dedicated funding is bad policy
Using constitutional amendments to allocate tax revenue for specific purposes is really bad public policy. First, it abdicates the responsibility of the legislature and governor to set priorities and manage the state budget. Second, dedicating funding through the constitution ties the hands of policymakers in the event there is a budget deficit.
Dedicated funding handcuffs legislators in times of budget crisis and forces them to stubbornly fund wasteful projects while other parts of the budget suffer.
8. Government revenue from gambling is wrong
Relying on a vice like gambling to fund state government is questionable policy. Encouraging citizens to gamble by playing the lottery while knowing the devastating consequences problem gambling has on Minnesota families is not the right way to protect our water. The lottery also receives a disproportionate share of its revenue from poorer parts of the state. According to the Minnesota Reformer, “[lottery proceeds] come disproportionately from people in Minnesota’s low-income neighborhoods, effectively turning the state lottery into a highly regressive tax on the working class.”
What if it fails?
The threshold for constitutional amendments is purposely very hard to reach. In order for the amendment to pass, a majority of voters have to vote yes, not just a majority of those voting on the amendment. So not voting is tantamount to voting no. In a presidential election, many voters simply vote for president and leave the rest of the ballot blank.
On the other hand, many low-information voters will read the well-intentioned language of the amendment and vote yes. Again, who is against clean water?
If the amendment fails, the principal of the trust fund will remain in place for the legislature to spend but no new revenue will be directed to the principal from the lottery. Instead, excess lottery funds will simply flow to the general fund, making them available for other purposes —
