|
NRL News
Minnesota
Citizens Concerned for Life A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings has upheld the validity of pro-life organizations holding candidates to their commitment to protect and defend human life. The decision is expected to impact NRLC affiliates across the nation. Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) State PAC successfully defended its 2006 pre-election postcard that endorsed incumbent Paul Koering for Minnesota Senate District 12. His challenger, Terry Sluss, sued MCCL after losing the election to pro-life incumbent Koering by 55% to 43%. Sluss main-tained that MCCL had disseminated false campaign material. “This ruling is a justification of MCCL’s pledge to inform voters about the positions candidates hold on life issues,” said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. “Like many state NRLC affiliates, the MCCL State PAC devotes a great amount of time and money to providing credible information to voters, and the court has recognized the integrity of our work.” The MCCL State PAC provides a voter’s guide prior to each primary and general election to millions of voters across Minnesota. The voter’s guide is based on the MCCL Candidate Questionnaire, which is sent to each candidate several months before publication. Refused Candidate Survey In the spring of 2006, Sluss refused to answer a candidate survey from MCCL State PAC. When MCCL contacted Sluss several times by telephone to follow up, he explained that he didn’t believe in responding to PAC surveys. However, he admitted to having filled out various candidate surveys for environmental and labor union groups. MCCL State PAC distributed a postcard endorsing his opponent, Paul Koering, an incumbent with a 100% pro-life voting record and a 100% score on the questionnaire. Regarding Sluss, the postcard explained that he had refused to commit to any legal protection for innocent unborn babies, and had refused to respond to any question on life issues in the 2006 MCCL State Legislative Candidate Questionnaire. After losing the election, Sluss filed his complaint against MCCL State PAC for dissemination of false campaign material. “Inclination” Not Enough The issue was whether MCCL State PAC violated Minn. Statute 211B.06 by intentionally participating in the preparation or dissemination of false campaign material that it knew was false or communicated to others with reckless disregard as to whether it was false. A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings ruled that Sluss failed to demonstrate that MCCL State PAC had violated the statute and dismissed the complaint. “It is reasonable to characterize his decision not to fill out the questionnaire as a ‘refusal,’” the judicial panel ruled. “[Sluss’s] statement to a news reporter that he was ‘inclined to support’ certain ‘pro-life’ legislation cannot fairly be characterized as a commitment.” Sluss had stated publicly a few times that he was pro-life from conception to natural death. But by declining to respond to the MCCL candidate survey, he chose not to tell MCCL his position on the pro-life issues addressed in the survey. The panel held that it was fair for MCCL to characterize Sluss’s refusal to respond as a “refusal to commit to legal protection of the unborn.” It also found that MCCL’s statement that “Sluss refused to commit to legal protection for innocent unborn babies” was not false. Pro-Life Surveys Vindicated “This result vindicates MCCL’s careful use of candidate surveys and pre-election postcards to inform voters about candidate positions on life issues,” said James Bopp, Jr., of Bopp, Coleson and Bostrom, counsel for MCCL State PAC. “It also highlights the importance of candidate responses to MCCL surveys in the future. Candidates who simply refuse to respond shouldn’t complain about public statements saying that they refused to take a position on life issues.” |