Minnesota Senate Republicans file ethics 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 for the Minnesota Reformer.
Minnesota Senate Republicans filed an ethics complaint against Senate President Bobby Joe Champion, DFL-Minneapolis, arguing that he used his elected position to steer funding for his legal client.
The Reformer first reported last week that Champion, a practicing attorney, had advocated for millions in grants for a nonprofit headed up by one of his legal clients, the Rev. Jerry McAfee.
Champion says his pro-bono legal work for McAfee concluded just prior to the start of the 2023 legislative session, when he successfully steered $3 million in public funds to McAfee's violence prevention group 21 Days of Peace.
Earlier this month, Champion introduced another bill allocating $1 million to 21 Days of Peace. Champion did not disclose to his fellow senators that he had represented McAfee and his nonprofit Salem Inc. in four court cases involving nonpayment of mortgages on multiple Minneapolis properties.
Senate Republicans in their ethics complaint argued that Champion's failure to disclose his relationship with McAfee 'violated Senate Rules by falling short of the highest ethical standards, betraying the public trust, and giving the appearance that his independence of judgement was impaired by his legal relationship with Rev. McAfee and Salem Inc.'
'This is a clear and deeply troubling case of a public official using their legislative position to potentially benefit their private legal clients,' Sen. Michael Kreun, R-Blaine, said in a statement. 'With what we know, at a minimum this is a conflict of interest that warranted disclosure. At worst, it's an abuse of public office for personal and professional gain.'
Champion earlier this week told the Senate Jobs and Economic Development Committee that the reporting about his connection with McAfee and the grant funding he steered to the nonprofit was a 'smear' on his name.
Champion has temporarily stepped down as chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Ethics, and he has asked the committee to issue an advisory opinion on whether his actions on behalf of McAfee's group represented a conflict of interest and should have been disclosed under Senate rules.
'There's no conflict from my vantage point,' Champion told the Senate jobs committee.
McAfee isn't the only legal client to benefit from Champion's grantmaking: In 2024, he provided legal representation for a Minneapolis-based substance abuse treatment provider, Turning Point. The prior year, Champion spearheaded a successful effort to direct $1 million in public funds to the organization for improving their facility.
Champion said he was not compensated for his legal representation of Turning Point, and he was involved in the case only briefly.
The Star Tribune reported that Champion's executive assistant, Shemeka Bogan, previously worked for McAfee's 21 Days of Peace. Champion and Bogan both previously worked for the nonprofit Stairstep Foundation, and Champion in his Senate role has advocated for public funding for Stairstep.
Champion's ethically questionable conduct underscores the perils of Minnesota's part-time Legislature when most lawmakers need to earn a living beyond their $51,750 legislative salary, and how lawmaker-directed grants create an ethics minefield. Some lawmakers are now seeking to curtail the practice of lawmakers giving public funds directly to nonprofits.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate GOP seeks to cut off funding source for top consumer watchdog
Senate Republicans are seeking to cut off a key funding source for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as part of a mammoth package to advance President Trump's tax agenda and spending cuts. Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee said the legislative text unveiled Friday would block CFPB's ability 'to fund itself' by significantly limiting its funding structure. Currently, as part of its funding structure, the CFPB receives transfers from the central bank not exceeding a cap set at 12 percent of the Federal Reserve System's total operating expenses in 2009. However, the proposal offered by Senate Republicans on Friday would reduce that cap to zero. The measure goes further than the House version of Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' which seeks to reduce the cap to 5 percent. The GOP-led Senate committee said Friday the move would not 'affect the Bureau's existing ability to request funds from Congress' and would result in about $6.4 billion in savings over 10 years. The CFPB has long faced legal challenges over its funding structure, as Republicans have pushed for the agency to be funded through the annual appropriations process in Congress that many other federal agencies are subject to instead of the Federal Reserve. Some Republicans have said they see the broader tax and spending cuts plan as their best shot to rein in an agency they've argued has too much power and independence. The recent text has drawn swift backlash from Democrats on the banking committee, however. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), the top Democrat on the committee, attacked the Republican proposal in statement Friday afternoon, saying it 'goes beyond the already extreme House bill and is yet another example of Republicans' reckless and bloodthirsty pursuit of destroying the CFPB — an agency that has returned over $21 billion to scammed Americans — by any means necessary, after failing to get their way in court.' Another section of the legislation calls for moving 'non-monetary policy related Federal Reserve employees to a new pay scale calculated at 70 percent of the pay of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,' Republicans outline in a breakdown of the measure. Republicans say the employees' salaries would be adjusted 'to approximately the same as employees at the Department of the Treasury' as part of a measure the committee estimates would generate 'savings of $1.4 billion.' Republicans say the move would bring 'parity to the pay scale of the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department.' However, Democratic members of the banking committee accused their GOP colleagues of punishing Fed staff and undermining their ability 'to police' big banks. Other proposals sought by the committee include measures to yank back funding for the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Green and Resilient Retrofit Program authorized under the Biden administration, eliminate what Republicans say is the Treasury Department's 'duplicative office' of Office of Financial Research, and transferring duties and functions of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The language is similar to recent legislation that passed the House. The measure also seeks to provide $1 billion for the Defense Production Act fund. Overall, Republicans on the committee estimated the 'net budgetary impacts' of the legislation to 'result in a 10-year budgetary savings of $8.447 billion.' Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said Friday that he worked with House and Senate colleagues to 'carefully scrutinize programs and spending within our jurisdiction and identify efficiencies and cost savings.' 'This legislation takes important steps to reduce waste and duplication in financial regulation while bolstering our national security, and I look forward to advancing these provisions as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill,' he said. Democrats, on the other hand, are vowing to fight the suite of proposals as what they have described as an 'attack on American consumers.' 'Their bill also guts other regulators created after the 2008 crisis that help keep our financial system safe,' Warren said Friday. 'This will not stand — and don't just take it from me, take it from the litany of Senate Republicans who are on the record saying this violates Senate rules.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court allows DOGE broad access to Social Security data
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday permitted the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in President Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. At the request of the Justice Department, the justices put on hold Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing DOGE unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with DOGE. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the order. DOGE swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration, or SSA, including Social Security numbers for Americans, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients including retirees and disabled Americans. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the Social Security Administration had been "ransacked" and that DOGE members had been installed without proper vetting or training and demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in an April 17 ruling found that DOGE had failed to explain why its stated mission required "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems." "For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records," Hollander wrote. "This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation." Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited DOGE staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with only narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling does allow DOGE affiliates to access data that has been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access have gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered DOGE affiliates to "disgorge and delete" any personal information already in their possession. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on April 30 to pause Hollander's block on DOGE's unlimited access to Social Security Administration records. Justice Department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. "The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access," they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow DOGE to access data at the U.S. Treasury and Education Departments and the Office of Personnel Management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against DOGE wrote that the case involving Social Security data was "substantially stronger" with "vastly greater stakes," citing "detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records," such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.
New York Times
40 minutes ago
- New York Times
Democrats Threaten Trump Prosecutor Picks, Pointing to Past Vance Blockade
During his brief tenure in the Senate, Vice President JD Vance blocked Biden administration nominees for U.S. attorney, in a break with past practice. Now, a senior Democrat is citing that as a precedent for insisting on the same standard for President Trump's federal prosecutor nominees, potentially jeopardizing their confirmation. 'There shouldn't be one set of rules for Republicans and another for the Democrats,' said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, who plans to adhere to what he is calling 'the Vance precedent' for Trump prosecutors unless Republicans offer some concessions. 'You expect me to just look the other way now?' he asked of Republicans at a Judiciary Committee hearing this week. U.S. attorney nominees traditionally sped through the Senate on an expedited basis once they cleared an F.B.I. background check and scrutiny by the Judiciary Committee. The panel does not conduct formal hearings on them, as it does on judges up for lifetime appointments. Mr. Durbin noted that Democrats had followed that practice in agreeing to confirm scores of prosecutors in Mr. Trump's first term. But beginning in June 2023, Mr. Vance, then a first-term Republican senator, said he would oppose moving ahead with all Justice Department nominees, excluding federal marshals, to protest what he contended was the politicization of the department and its pursuit of Mr. Trump in the courts. He said his goal was to 'grind this department to a halt.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
