Notable
Campaign Complaint Decisions
False Claim of
Support or Endorsement (
Bicking v. Rybak for Mayor
(7/28/09) (failure to get written
permission)
Schmidt v. Cave and
Meinzer v. Jasicki (10/19/06) (photo of candidate in
firefighting attire and logo of fire department not enough to imply endorsement
by fire department)
Maloney v.
Stone v. Kummer (10/13/05) (use of initials “DFL” by non-endorsed
candidate)
Disclaimer
requirement (Minn. Stat. § 211B.04)
Riley v. Jankowski, 713 N.W.2d 379 (
NOTE: Minn. Legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 211B.04, effective June 1, 2010 applying to campaign material prepared and disseminated on or after that date. Please note, the Citizens United v. FEC decision may affect this statutory provision.
Gadsden v. Kiffmeyer, (11/1/10) (incumbent’s constituent informational mailing deemed campaign material but found to substantially comply with disclaimer requirement.)
False Campaign
Material (
To be found to have violated section 211B.06, two requirements must be met: (1) a person must intentionally participate in the preparation or dissemination of false campaign material; and (2) the person preparing or disseminating the material must know that the item is false, or act with reckless disregard as to whether it is false. Thus, the Complainant has the burden at the hearing to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondents either published the statements knowing the statements were false, or that they “in fact entertained serious doubts” as to the truth of the publication or acted “with a high degree of awareness” of its probable falsity.[1][1]
As interpreted by the Minnesota Supreme Court, the statute is directed against false statements of fact. It is not intended to prevent criticism of candidates for office or to prevent unfavorable deductions or inferences derived from a candidate’s conduct.[2][2] In addition, the burden of proving the falsity of a factual statement cannot be met by showing only that the statement is not literally true in every detail. If the statement is true in substance, inaccuracies of expression or detail are immaterial.[3][3]
Pahl v.
Mucciacciaro (2/11/09) (claim
that city council spent down reserve was knowingly false)
Sluss v. MCCL
PAC (4/17/07) (claim that candidate refused to
commit to issue not false where candidate refused to fill out questionnaire
asking candidates for such commitments)
Posusta and Herbst v. Wojchouski and Patch (1/29/07)
(statement that candidate “accosted and battered” a high school student
knowingly false)
Election
Day Prohibitions (
Guy and
Schimming v. Riverblood (6/05/09)
(prohibitions against campaigning near polling place cannot be enforced on
private property)
Van
Klompenburg v. Clausen (11/09/06)
(“mingling” with voters not enough to establish violation)
Legal
Campaign Expenditures (
Kaari v.
Johnson,
(3/2/10) (city council member found to have converted to personal use money
contributed to her political committee)
Bribery
and Solicitation (Minn. Stat. §
211B.13) (statute prohibits giving something of monetary value to induce
voting)
Schauer v.
Gillaspie (10/11/06) (notepads)
Kalil v.
Knutson (9/10/04) (parade candy)
Prohibited
Corporate Contributions (
Republican
Party v. Horner, (7/1/10) (candidate not found to have received prohibited
corporate contributions in the form of polling data that was available free of
charge)
Rego v. 94
West Business Center, et al
(10/31/08) (Federal Election Campaign Act governs contributions to
federal candidates and preempts § 211B.15)
Sween v. Kelly
and Hanson Marketing (10/28/08) (five
page magazine article not a prohibited contribution under media exemption for
news items)
Rossbach v.
Hjelle, et al (6/06/06) (Because
candidate paid for his lawn signs with a check drawn on his business account,
he violated § 211B.13 by accepting a prohibited corporate contribution under §
211B.15)
Moses v.