|
|
15-0320-20325-CV |
STATE OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|
Susan K.L. Rego,
Complainant, vs. Representative Tom Emmer and Thomas Emmer for State Representative Committee, Respondents. |
ORDER
OF DISMISSAL |
On March 16, 2009,
Susan Rego filed a Complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings
alleging that Tom Emmer and Emmer for State Representative Committee violated
Minn. Stat. §§ 211A.02 (campaign financial reports) and 211B.13 (accepting
prohibited corporate contribution). The
Chief Administrative Law Judge assigned this matter to the undersigned
Administrative Law Judge on March 16, 2009.
A copy of the complaint and attachments were sent by
After reviewing the Complaint and attached exhibits, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge has determined that the Complaint does not set forth prima facie violations of either Minn. Stat. §§ 211A.02 or 211B.13. This determination is described in more detail in the attached Memorandum.
Based upon the Complaint and the supporting filings and for the reasons set out in the attached Memorandum,
IT IS ORDERED:
That the Complaint filed by Susan Rego is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Complainant may revise and file a subsequent complaint regarding alleged violations of Minn. Stat. § 211B.13 without paying an additional filing fee.
Dated: March 18, 2009
|
/s/ Beverly Jones Heydinger |
|
BEVERLY JONES HEYDINGER |
|
Administrative Law Judge |
Respondent Tom Emmer was re-elected to the Minnesota House of Representatives District 19B in the November 2008 general election. The Complainant, Susan Rego, is the Minnesota DFL State Party Secretary.
The Complaint alleges that during the month leading up to the
general election, a commercial billboard promoting Mr. Emmer’s candidacy was on
display alongside Interstate 94 near
The Complaint alleges that Representative Emmer failed to report expenditures or in-kind contributions relating to the costs of this billboard on his campaign finance reports in violation of Minn. Stat. § 211A.02.
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 211A governs campaign financial reporting for local candidates and their committees. “Candidate” is defined as an individual who seeks election to a “county, municipal, school district, or other political subdivision office.”[2] Chapter 211A does not govern individuals seeking election as a state constitutional officer, legislator or judge. Instead, these individuals are required to file campaign financial reports with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 10A. Because Representative Emmer was a candidate for the Minnesota House, he and his committee were not required to file reports under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 211A. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to allege a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211A.02 and that allegation is dismissed.
In addition, the Complaint contends that Representative Emmer
and his campaign committee violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.13, subd. 2, by
accepting a corporate contribution presumably from Capital Land Investments,
LLC. Section 211B.13, subd. 2, prohibits
persons from knowingly accepting or receiving anything of monetary value that
is prohibited under Minn. Stat. § 211B.15.
Minnesota Statutes § 211B.15 prohibits corporations from making
contributions, directly or indirectly, to an individual to promote the
individual’s candidacy or election to political office. “Corporation” is defined to include for
profit, nonprofit, and limited liability companies doing business in
After reviewing the Complaint and attachments, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Complainant has failed to allege a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.13. There is no evidence in the Complaint or attachments identifying who or what entity paid for or donated the billboard promoting Representative Emmer’s candidacy. The fact that the billboard is located on property owned by Capital Land Investments, LLC is not sufficient to show that Capital Land Investments made a prohibited corporate contribution to Representative Emmer or his campaign committee. Unlike a local business permitting a candidate to place a lawn sign on its property,[4] it is more likely that Capital Land Investments leases its property to Franklin Outdoor Advertising for the commercial billboard and that Franklin Outdoor Advertising in turn rents the billboard to paying customers. Any number of groups, corporations, or individuals could have paid for the billboard. Without some evidence that a corporation paid for or donated the cost of the billboard, which could be a prohibited contribution, the Complaint lacks a sufficient factual basis to support the claimed 211B.13 violation.
Accordingly, this allegation is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing. Should the Complainant discover that a corporation did pay for or donate the billboard in violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.15, the Complainant may revise and file a subsequent complaint without payment of an additional filing fee.
B.J.H.