This is written as a Counterpoint to Charlie Rybak’s piece “There’s Something Rotten in Minneapolis Politics”

Like Charlie, I agree that Minneapolis is a beautiful city, and its best asset is its people, including immigrants who came from faraway places to make a better life. We have neighbors who care about one another and who work hard to uphold the common good. I also agree that with hard choices ahead, this is a critical moment when we need to lean into our values rather than further abandon the things that make this city great.

But I disagree with the description of our city politics as “dysfunctional” or “unhealthy.” This might come as a surprise to people who follow my work – I literally track how often the council is “divided” on issues. I certainly have many disagreements with councilmembers and our current mayor on particular issues.

But disagreement isn’t “dysfunctional.” It’s a reflection of the diverse set of voices and opinions we have in our city. As anyone who has talked with people outside of their bubble knows, the opinions among the residents in our city are as diverse–even more diverse–than the diversity of opinions among our elected officials.

Our elected officials have fierce, sometimes ugly disagreements. That happens because they’re representing constituents, and yes, interest groups, who also disagree.

That’s politics.

The PACs and the “political-industrial complex”

I agree wholeheartedly with Charlie that our campaign finance system is broken. I disagree that you can just wave a magic wand to fix it.

Running a campaign with or without outside PACs is expensive. I know this because I serve as the treasurer for two City Council campaigns and one mayoral campaign. (For full disclosure, Katie Cashman, Soren Stevenson for City Council and Sen. Omar Fateh for mayor)

For a mayoral campaign, you need to raise a half a million dollars to a million dollars. For a council campaign, you’re looking at something in the range of $50,000 to $150,000. The amount of money needed varies depending on the competitiveness of the race and the ward the candidate is running in.

What is this money spent on? All sorts of things. A lot of things you probably hate, like ads and a ton of emails and text messages. It’s also spent on things like hiring canvassers and direct voter contact. The simple reality of living in our political and economic system is that political campaigns, like everything else, cost money.

I want to distinguish between different types of non-candidate fundraising campaigns and committees that pop up during elections, all under the direction of Minnesota’s campaign finance law.

• A “political committee” is a group that takes money from individuals or organizations. They cannot take money from corporations. They are only allowed to donate up to the same amount as an individual to a candidate’s campaign. Women Winning is an example.
  
  
• A “political fund” is similar, but is primarily funded by a single organization. Generally, these groups are unions, or 501(c)(4) organizations.
  
  
• Either of these groups can also have the “independent expenditure” label added to it. This allows the group to accept money from corporations and spend unlimited funds – but not make direct contributions to candidates. They are legally prohibited from coordinating with candidate campaigns. When people say “PACs,” this is generally what they think of. All of Mpls and Mpls for the Many are examples. The budgets of the largest outside independent expenditures tend to be comparable in size to a mayoral campaign.

As much as we would like to magic PACs away, we can’t. Rich people are going to spend unlimited money on politics, and unless Citizens United magically gets overturned, that’s not going to change.

It’s also not realistic to imagine that one “side” in Minneapolis politics will unilaterally disarm. Having more money is an advantage in politics, and it’s magical thinking to deny that reality.

There is a lot of research on the impacts of money in politics. Small differences in campaign spending don’t matter as much but if one side vastly outspends the other, it  absolutely has an impact. And this makes intuitive sense. If you have more money, you can do more things to reach out to voters. If you both have roughly the same amount of money, it starts to cancel out.

So if we can’t magic away PACs, and we can’t magically make campaigns be free, what can we do?

One option we’d have is to adopt a publicly financed, matching funds system. The eight to one match in New York City is a particularly interesting example of how to help individuals with less to donate go toe to toe with big donors.

Caucuses and Conventions

I agree with Charlie that the Minneapolis DFL caucus and convention system is outdated and undemocratic, but I disagree that it needs to die. Or at least if it does die, it should rise again, better and stronger than before, like a phoenix from the ashes.

There are a lot of complaints people have about the caucus and convention process. I have a lot of complaints too. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

At its core, the caucus process is about making sure individual voters select the candidates the party supports, rather than big-money PACs and party bigwigs. Is it perfect? No. Does it always live up to this promise? No.

So let’s make it better. Don’t like that the caucuses are inaccessible? They could be held online. Don’t like how long they take? We can change that.

People and organizations will react and adapt to the changes that happen in our politics. People are social animals and will naturally work together to accomplish their goals. If the caucuses and conventions disappear, other organizations and other processes to influence elections will spring up to take their place, and you might like those systems even less.

What can I do?

I agree with Charlie that you should ask hard questions of candidates and see which candidate supports your goals and has a plan to achieve those goals at City Hall.

But I want you to dream bigger and dig deeper. I don’t want anyone in Minneapolis to think of themselves as just a voter. That is reactive. I want you to be proactive. You are a political actor in your own right. You have goals for what you want this city to be. And you have the power to make it happen. My mission with my political coverage is to make everyone a “political insider” by making local government information easier to understand.

The other problem with thinking of yourself as just a voter is that it defines you as an individual. In a city of over 400,000 people, you aren’t going to get very much done as an individual. The Democratic-Farmer-Labor party has a common saying, “Don’t agonize, organize.”

Every one of you has the power to make change in this city. You have resources at your disposal–time, talents, and money. Find out what you can do and what you can make happen. Organize with your neighbors and with like-minded people. Volunteer for a campaign, a political organization, or even a dreaded PAC if that’s what floats your boat.

You can recruit people to run for office, or even run for office yourself.

Ultimately, we make this city what we want it to be. But we can’t just complain and wish for a better city. And we can’t just pick candidates out of a catalog as if they fall from the sky. The only people who can make this city better are ourselves.

Josh Martin is a former contributor for Southwest Voices and has also previously worked for Minneapolis Documenters. He still covers Minneapolis politics as a self-described “quasi-journalist” and is active in politics, including in campaigns and as a DFL officer.