04-09-2009 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

REBECCA OTTO STATE AUDITOR STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR SUITE 500 525 PARK STREET SAINT PAUL, MN 55103-2139 Statement of Position Expenditure of Public Funds on Ballot Issue Advocacy (651) 296-2551 (Voice) (651) 296-4755 (Fax) state.auditor@state.mn.us (E-mail) 1-800-627-3529 (Relay Service) Local units of government may want to advocate for the passage of constitutional amendments, local ballot questions, or levy referenda. I However, with rare exceptions, public funds may not be used to advocate for the adoption or rejection of any ballot question. By extension, local governmental units may not give money to an organization to advocate or campaign for or against a ballot question. The Minnesota Attorney General has long held that local governments cannot spend public funds on campaigns to promote a particular election outcome, such as to adopt amendments to the Minnesota Constitution.2 In 1952, the Attorney General was asked whether the Town of Brooklyn was authorized to pay town funds to an association organized to advocate for the adoption of a constitutional amendment.3 The Attorney General "answered in the negative." Quoting a 1927 opinion, the Attorney General stated, "`Spending the money of the taxpayers for such purposes is against public policy, and illegal.'" The opinion asserted, "Neither public officers nor the people assembled at [a] town meeting may lawfully spend or vote to spend public moneys for such purposes." Similarly, a 1966 Minnesota Attorney General opinion determined that a school district had no authority to spend money to promote one side of a bond referendum.4 The opinion relied on the reasoning of a New Jersey case, Citizens to Protect Public Funds v. Board of Education, 98 A.2d 673 (N.J. 1953). In the New Jersey case, the court upheld the right of the Board of Education to present the facts to the voters, but explained that public funds entrusted to a public body belong equally to both sides of a controversy. The public body could not use public funds to try to persuade the voters that only one side of the controversy had merit. The 1966 Attorney General opinion explained that school boards may expend a reasonable amount of funds to educate voters of facts pertinent to a ballot question or IThis Statement of Position does not address lobbying, that is, working to influence a legislator's vote. 2 Minnesota's Campaign Practices law also appears to prohibit public officers and employees from approving the expenditure of public funds for ballot issue advocacy. See Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.01, subd. 6 and 211B.09. 3 Op. Att'y Gen. (July 10, 1952). 4 Op. Att'y Gen. 159a-3 (May 24, 1966). Reviewed: July 2008 Revised: July 2008 2008-1001