Minnesota Senate ethics committee takes no action on complaint against Champion
Senate president Bobby Joe Champion, right, talks after leading the session during the regular legislative session Monday, March 27, 2023. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)
The Senate ethics committee on Monday took no action on a complaint against Senate President Bobby Joe Champion, DFL-Minneapolis.
A GOP complaint alleged he violated Senate rules when he spearheaded state funds to an organization run by a former legal client.
Republicans filed the complaint against Champion after Reformer reporting found that he advocated for a $3 million grant to violence prevention nonprofit 21 Days of Peace, run by north Minneapolis Rev. Jerry McAfee, but didn't disclose that McAfee had been his legal client. Champion says he did the work pro bono.
Last month, the Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct found that Champion had no financial conflict of interest when he advocated for an additional $1 million in funding for 21 Days of Peace earlier this year, but didn't make any findings about his 2023 actions.
The committee, evenly split between Republican and Democratic members, on Monday voted on four related motions, which failed 2-2, on party-line votes.
Because the committee deadlocked on taking action, the complaint will likely die and not be relitigated again.
David Zoll, Champion's attorney, argued that Champion followed Senate rules, which state that senators only need to disclose a conflict of interest if an action were to benefit them financially. Champion represented McAfee pro bono, so he followed Senate rules even though he didn't disclose it, Zoll argued.
Champion at the hearing criticized the media, arguing that the GOP senators in their ethics complaint relied on articles that presented a misinterpretation of the Senate ethics rules.
'A reporter can say that any of us have done something — and whether they're right or wrong — we would find ourselves sitting in this seat, because we don't have the power of the pen,' Champion said.
Sen. Mary Kunesh, DFL-New Brighton, echoed Champion's criticism of the media.
'I think it's really important to recognize the role that media plays in making or breaking an individual, not just here in the Senate, but also bringing in information that perhaps is going to influence the general public one way or another without knowing the full bit of information,' Kunesh said.
Champion has never disputed the facts of the Reformer's reporting.
In a statement after the hearing, Champion said he was grateful the ethics committee didn't issue a finding of probable cause and is eager to get back to work.
'Elected officials have a responsibility to act with integrity, and to earn the trust and confidence of the public,' Champion said. 'I am proud of my record, and of my work as both a legislator and an attorney, particularly the pro bono legal services I have provided to churches and nonprofits.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
14 minutes ago
- Washington Post
ICE approves Georgia immigrant detention center following DOGE review
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is moving forward with a plan to build the nation's largest immigrant detention facility in southeast Georgia, according to Buddy Carter, a Republican who represents the state's 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives. ICE has issued a modification to its contract with private prison firm Geo Group Inc. that will combine the company's Folkston detention center, an active facility that can hold up to 1,100 detainees, with D. Ray James, an idle former prison located on an adjacent property that can hold around 1,870 detainees, Carter said in a press release Friday.
Forbes
16 minutes ago
- Forbes
Former GOP Rep David Jolly Explains Why He Joined FL Gov Race As A Dem & Why He Won't Bring Up Trump
Former Congressman David Jolly, who served in Congress as a Republican, is now running for governor of Florida as a Democrat. Jolly joined Brittany Lewis on "Forbes Newsroom" to discuss his campaign. Watch the full interview above.
Vox
17 minutes ago
- Vox
The big reason why Republicans should worry about an angry Elon Musk
In the November 2026 midterm elections, Elon Musk could have much more impact for much less money. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images How the Musk-Trump blowup ends, nobody knows. Most commentary gives President Donald Trump the advantage. But Elon Musk's willingness to spend his fortune on elections gives him one distinct advantage — the ability to drive a brittle party system into chaos and loosen Trump's hold on it. Thus far, Musk has raised two electoral threats. First, his opposition to Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill has raised the specter of his funding primary challenges against Republicans who vote to support the legislation. Second, he has raised the possibility of starting a new political party. There are limits to how much Musk can actually reshape the political landscape — but the underlying conditions of our politics make it uniquely vulnerable to disruption. The threat of Musk-funded primaries might ring a little hollow. Trump will almost certainly still be beloved by core Republican voters in 2026. Musk can fund primary challengers, but in a low-information, low-turnout environment of mostly Trump-loving loyal partisans, he is unlikely to succeed. However, in the November 2026 midterm elections, Musk could have much more impact for much less money. All he needs to do is fund a few spoiler third-party candidates in a few key swing states and districts. In so doing, he would exploit the vulnerability that has been hiding in plain sight for a while — the wafer-thin closeness of national elections. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life, from senior editor Patrick Reis. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In a straight-up battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Trump wins hands down. Not even close. Trump has been the party's leader and cult of personality for a decade. But in a battle for the balance of power, Musk might hold the cards. Currently, the US political system is 'calcified.' That's how the political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck described it in their 2022 book, The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Partisans keep voting for their side, seeing only the reality that makes them the heroes; events may change, but minds don't. In a 48-48 country, that means little opportunity for either party to make big gains. It also means a small disruption could have massive implications. Elon Musk doesn't have a winning coalition — but he may not need one to hurt Trump Let's imagine, for a moment, that Musk is serious about starting a new political party and running candidates. He will quickly find that despite his X poll, a party that 'actually represents the 80 percent in the middle' is a fantasy. That mythical center? Being generous here, that's maybe 15 percent of politically checked-out Americans. Realistically, the coalition for Musk's politics — techno-libertarian-futurist, anti-system, very online, Axe-level bro-vibes — would be small. But even so, a Musk-powered independent party — call it the 'Colonize Mars' Party — would almost certainly attract exactly the voters completely disenchanted with both parties, mostly the disillusioned young men who went to Trump in the 2024 election. Imagine Musk funds his Colonize Mars Party in every competitive race, recruiting energetic candidates. He gives disenchanted voters a chance to flip off the system: Vote for us, and you can throw the entire Washington establishment into a panic! Practically, not many seats in the midterms will be up for grabs. Realistically, about 40 or so House seats will be genuine swing seats. In the Senate, there are realistically only about seven competitive races. But that means a small party of disruption could multiply the targeted impact of a precision blast with a well-chosen 5 percent of the electorate in less than 10 percent of the seats. Quite a payoff. The short-term effect would be to help Democrats. Musk used to be a Democrat, so this is not so strange. If Musk and his tech allies care about immigration, trade, and investment in domestic science, supporting Democrats may make more sense. And if Musk mostly cares about disruption and sending Trump spiraling, this is how he would do it. Musk is an engineer at heart. His successes have emerged from him examining existing systems, finding their weak points, and asking, What if we do something totally different? From an engineer's perspective, the American political system has a unique vulnerability. Every election hangs on a narrow margin. The balance of power is tenuous. Since 1992, we've been in an extended period in which partisan control of the White House, Senate, and the House has continually oscillated between parties. National electoral margins remain wickedly tight (we haven't had a landslide national election since 1984). And as elections come to depend on fewer and fewer swing states and districts, a targeted strike on these pivotal elections could completely upend the system. A perfectly balanced and completely unstable system It's a system ripe for disruption. So why has nobody disrupted it? First, it takes money — and Musk has a lot of it. Money has its limits — Musk's claim that his money helped Trump win the election is dubious. Our elections are already saturated with money. In an era of high partisan loyalty, the vast majority of voters have made up their minds before the candidate is even announced. Most money is wasted. It hits decreasing marginal returns fast. The very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat. But where money can make a difference is in reaching angry voters disenchanted with both parties with a protest option. Money buys awareness more than anything else. For $300 million (roughly what Musk spent in 2024), a billionaire could have leverage in some close elections. For $3 billion (about 1 percent of Musk's fortune) the chance of success goes up considerably. Second, disruption is possible when there are enough voters who are indifferent to the final outcome. The reason Ross Perot did so well in 1992? Enough voters saw no difference between the parties that they felt fine casting a protest vote. Election after election, we've gone through the same pattern. Throw out the old bums, bring in the new bums — even if 90-plus percent of the electorate votes for the same bums, year in and year out. But in a 48-48 country, with only a few competitive states and districts, a rounding-error shift of 10,000 votes across a few states (far fewer than a typical Taylor Swift concert) can bestow full control of the government. Think of elections as anti-incumbent roulette. The system is indeed 'calcified,' as Sides, Tausanovitch, and Vavreck convincingly argue. Calcified can mean immovable. But it can also mean brittle. Indeed, the very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat.
