State of Minnesota
Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board
Probable Cause Determination
In the matter of the complaint of the Republican Party of Minnesota, regarding the Minnesota
DFL State Central Committee, the DFL House Caucus, the DFL Senate Caucus, and various
candidates:
On May 9, 2016, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board received acomplaint submitted by Keith Downey, Chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota, regarding
the Minnesota DFL State Central Committee, the DFL House and Senate Caucuses, Mark
Dayton for a Better Minnesota, and multiple DFL endorsed candidates for House and Senate,some of whom were named and some not.
The complaint alleges that respondents violated Minnesota Statutes section 10A.27, subdivision2, a section limiting the amount of contributions that a principal campaign committee may accept
from political party units, and section 10A.20, subdivision 3, a section detailing the information
required to be contained in reports filed with the Board.
The complaint alleges that the respondents violated the aforementioned statutes because theMinnesota DFL State Central Committee (the DFL) hired and paid for certain individuals’employment, each of whom worked for the benefit of one or two individual candidates. The
complaint argues that because the individuals worked for the benefit of fewer than threecandidates, the payments made to the individuals do not qualify as multicandidate political party
unit expenditures pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 10A.275, subdivision 1(5), and, thus,
constitute in-kind contributions from the DFL to the various candidates’ committees.
The complaint further alleges that the reports filed with the Board by the DFL and thecandidates’ committees do not disclose the alleged in-kind contributions and that, in someinstances, these in-kind contributions caused committees to exceed the limit on contributions
from political party units.
At the prima facie determination stage, the Board Chair concluded that the complaint was
sufficient to state a prima facie violation of Chapter 10A with respect to the Minnesota DFL State
Central Committee, Mark Dayton for a Better Minnesota, and the various legislative candidate
committees. The Chair concluded that the complaint did not state a prima facie violation withrespect to the DFL Senate Caucus or the DFL House Caucus.
Relevant Statutes
Section 10A.022, subdivision 3(2), provides that when the Board Chair makes a finding that acomplaint raises a prima facie violation, the full Board must consider whether the complaint
establishes probable cause to believe that the alleged violation(s) occurred. In the presentmatter, the alleged violations occur if, as alleged, the expenditures by the DFL are not multicandidate expenditures but, rather, constitute contributions to the various candidates.

An expenditure qualifies as a multi-candidate expenditure, which is not a contribution to thebenefitted candidates, if the expenditure is for party unit staff services that benefit three or morecandidates. Minn. Stat. § 10A.275, subd. 1 (5).
Thus, if the subject expenditures benefited only one or two candidates, as complainant asserts,
they will not be multi-candidate expenditures, resulting in reporting violations and possible
contribution limits violations.
In considering matters involving application of statutes, the Board applies the language of thestatute using its plain meaning and such interpretations as may be required to carry out thelegislative intent in enacting the provision. With regard to the plain language of the statute, theBoard notes that the statute does not require that the staff member "work for" three candidates
or "support" three candidates. Rather, the language requires that the services provided by thestaff member "benefit" three or more candidates. The plain language permits multi-candidate
expenditure classification based on staff services that may not directly support a particular
candidate but, nevertheless, benefit that candidate.
The Board assumes that the "benefit" to the candidate may be either a direct or an indirect
benefit. The benefit need not be so specific that an exact monetary value can be assigned to it.
However, the benefit must not be so esoteric that it cannot be described.
The Board also recognizes its longstanding approach to multi-candidate expenditures, underwhich each individual service by a staff member need not benefit all three candidates
simultaneously nor must the benefit of the services be substantially equal between thecandidates. The Board finds no reason to deviate from its previous understanding that party
units have a fairly wide latitude within which staff services will meet the three-or-more-candidate
benefit requirement.
The complaint acknowledges the statutory requirements for multi-candidate expenditures andalleges that the work of the subject employees did not meet the requirement that it benefit threeor more candidates. In support of this position, complainant alleges that the subject employees"publicly claim to have directly benefited one or two candidates and not the required three."With respect to the above statement, the Board makes two observations. First, the fact that aperson posts on a social media page that the person worked for one or two candidates does notestablish that the services did not also benefit others. Second, the complainant states that theemployees claim to have "directly benefited one or two candidates and not the required three."To the extent that complainant is relying on a statutory requirement that the multi-candidate
expenditure exception requires the employee's work to "directly benefit" three or morecandidates, that reliance is misplaced, as the statute does not include the word "directly."

2The probable cause standard
At the prima facie determination stage, the Chair viewed the complaint in the light mostfavorable to the complainant and accepted all inferences that were not entirely unreasonable.
Applying that standard, the Chair found that the complaint alleged prima facie violations.
The probable cause determination, which is now undertaken by the full Board, requires adeeper examination of the complaint and a higher standard for assertions that may be accepted.
Additionally, at the probable cause determination stage, the respondent has the opportunity tosubmit arguments against the determination. In this matter, the respondent DFL Party
submitted both legal and factual information; including offers of the facts that respondent
expects to prove if an investigation is undertaken. Although complainants are permitted toprovide an additional submission at the probable cause determination stage, complainant in thismatter did not do so.
A probable cause determination is not a complete examination of the evidence on both sides ofthe issue. Rather, it is a determination of whether a complaint raises sufficient questions of factwhich, if true, would result in the finding of a violation. A probable cause finding requires
something more than mere suspicion but less than actual proof.
It is up to the complainant to establish probable cause. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of
any alleged violations for which probable cause is not established. In deciding whether
probable cause is established, the Board may apply its own experience and perspective
regarding campaign finance law and the operation of campaigns.
Respondent DFL submissions
The DFL submitted a declaration from David Zoll indicating that he is an attorney with the lawfirm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen and that the firm presented training sessions for DFL staff
members on June 4 and June 30, 2014. He states that he prepared the materials for thepresentations and participated in the presentations. According to Mr. Zoll, the training sessions
covered the topic of multi-candidate expenditures and the characteristics necessary to make astaff activity a multi-candidate expenditure.
Although Mr. Zoll's declaration states that the training was provided "for DFL party staff," thedeclaration does not affirmatively state that each employee whose actions are the subject of thecomplaint attended the training.
Mr. Zoll also indicates that the DFL provided a memorandum from the party chair to each
employee performing multi-candidate expenditures explaining what multi-candidate
expenditures are and requiring that the employee perform work in a way that meets therequirements to classify the work as a multi-candidate expenditure.
According to the memorandum the party's multi-candidate expenditure effort to support its
endorsed candidates was referred to as the "coordinated campaign." The party's responseacknowledges that this coordinated campaign was an effort that used the multi-candidate
3expenditure concept of funding, which permits party unit staff efforts to be undertaken incoordination with the benefitted candidates.
According to Mr. Zoll, each employee working in the multi-candidate expenditure program wasrequired to acknowledge receipt and understanding of the chair's memorandum. Copies ofmemos relating to some of the staff members involved in this matter were provided.1
The DFL also submitted various declarations of staff members. The Board considers thesedeclarations to be offers of the proof that the DFL intends to provide should an investigation beundertaken. As such, they have a weight similar to allegations of the complaint. The
declarations, their attachments, and the analysis memorandum submitted by the DFL are a partof the record of this matter.
The declarations of Alexandra Kopel and Alyssa Siems Roberson related to their work
specifically, but also to the general way that the DFL operates its multi-candidate expenditure
program. As such, these declarations bear on all of the allegations of the complaint. Thesedeclarations, considered in the context of the attachments and the analysis provided by the DFL
suggest that the DFL fully understood the nature of and limitations on multi-candidate
expenditures. In order to maintain the multi-candidate expenditure status of its staff services,
the DFL indicates that its employees and the volunteers they recruited always mentioned othercandidates on the DFL ticket in door-knock or telephoning activities.
The DFL response, taken as a whole, asserts that in both legislative races and constitutionaloffice races, the DFL took steps to make sure that its employees knew what the requirements
for multi-candidate expenditures were and developed programs to ensure that people working
on the coordinated campaign understood what multi-candidate expenditures were and were
mindful of the requirement that their work must benefit three or more candidates.
The response materials assert that in voter interactions, the employees mentioned othercandidates whose names would be on the ballot. The response also indicates that fieldorganizers oversaw the installation and management of lawn signs, which benefitted three ormore candidates.
In general, the DFL asserts that its multi-candidate expenditure operation at the legislative level
worked from the legislative candidate up to constitutional office candidates, ensuring thatwhatever legislative candidate was the primary beneficiary of staff services, other candidates
seeking higher offices also benefitted. The DFL further asserts that when the primary
beneficiary was a constitutional officer, the party included legislative candidates in its efforts
1 Memos acknowledging their understanding of multi-candidate expenditures and agreeing to ensure that

their work qualified under the multi-candidate expenditure standard were provide for Jaime Makepeace,
Christopher Vaaler, Maxwell Hall, Megan Nelson, Jennie Maes, Kyle Olson, Jamel Lundy, Julian
Dahlquist, and Alexandra Kopel. The Board notes that the acknowledgment signed by Mr. Dahlquist
post-dates his activity in 2012. In addition to the evidentiary value of these acknowledgments withrespect to the employee's work, they serve as evidence that the DFL understood the multi-candidate
expenditure concept and intended that the employees working under the multi-candidate expendituremodel performed services that qualified as multi-candidate expenditures.
4

based on where the constitutional office effort was being undertaken. These assertions aresupported by offers of proof in the form of various declarations.
Because the response materials will be a part of the public record supporting this probablecause determination, each submission will not be individually discussed in this document.
Board analysis
In reviewing the complaint as a whole, the Board recognizes that each allegation follows thesame pattern. With respect to each named employee, the complaint refers to one or morestatements posted on a social media or web page (or in one case in an employment notice) by a
DFL staff member. In each case, the posting identifies some limited number of campaigns,candidates, or districts for which the person provided services. In each case, the number isfewer than three.2 For each employee, complainant concludes that the statement of the staff
member supports a conclusion that the individual provided services that benefited only thespecific candidates or candidates in the specific districts mentioned.
That the persons named in the complaint were employees of the DFL is not in dispute. Neither
is it disputed that the employees made the social media postings alleged in the complaint. The
question before the Board, then, is not whether these facts are true, but whether, in the contextof the record, they support the inference that the various employees’ services benefited only thecandidates they specifically referenced.
The Board notes that the social media postings are high-level statements lacking any significant
detail about what was actually done by the employees. Even a cursory examination of thepostings suggests that the employees were more interested in providing a biographicalsnapshot of their activities than in describing technical-legal nuances of their employment andwork.
Even if the information posted is generally accurate as far as it goes, the social media
statements do not say that the employee's services benefited only those candidates specificallynamed. While this inference, which complainant urges the Board to accept, may have beenminimally sufficient to withstand a prima facie determination, it is not likely sufficient to support
the more rigorous probable cause determination.3
In addition to the conclusions to be drawn from the totality of the DFL response, a few items
merit specific comment.
In support of its allegations regarding the work of Julian Dahlquist, complainant submitted an
online posting for DFL jobs which indicated that the successful candidate would execute a fieldplan for a specific Senate candidate. However, this statement does not rule out a determination
2 Copies of the various social media or other web pages were submitted with the complaint as exhibits B

through M. Because they will become a part of the public record of this determination, they are notexplained in detail in this document.
3 Because the DFL submitted a response in this matter, it is not necessary for the Board to decide
whether the complaint, in the absence of a response, would support a finding of probable cause.
5that the employee performed services that also benefitted other candidates or, for that matter,that the field plan itself incorporated activities that benefitted the associated House candidates.
In fact, the declaration of Alyssa Siems Roberson states that each Senate field organizer wasassigned to a senate district. She states that the voter contact done by and under the directionof the field organizer was "done on behalf of the entire DFL ticket." She also states that eachfield organizer worked with both of the House candidates and the Senate candidate in thedistrict to organize door knocking and telephoning activities "to identify voters' preferences andto persuade voters to support DFL-endorsed candidates."
The complaint also alleged that the services of three individuals, identified as "Political Director"
or "Regional Political Director" for the Mark Dayton for a Better Minnesota committee were inkind contributions rather than multi-candidate expenditures, using the same social media modeland urging the same inference as it did for its other allegations.
The overall DFL response rebuts the inference that the individuals supporting the Governor's
committee benefited only the Governor. The declaration of Jaime Makepeace is directly
relevant to her activities in the position of political director and to the activities of the two
individuals who identified themselves as regional political directors for the Dayton campaign.
Makepeace's declaration asserts that her duties included coordinating efforts of the Governor'scommittee with other candidates' committees so as to leverage the Governor's profile inassistance to these other candidates. The regional directors, whom she supervised, assisted inthese same duties, which benefitted both the Governor's committee and the various legislative
candidates in the regions.
In the present matter, the stated facts are not in dispute. The sole question is whether theinference urged by complainant; that the social media postings are sufficient to raise a realquestion as to whether the various staff services benefitted three or more candidates; raises a
significant question of material fact that should be resolved through an investigation. The Board
concludes that the inference is not reasonable in the context of the full record and that no issue
requiring an investigation is raised.
Based on the above analysis, the Board makes the following:
Findings of fact
1. The complaint is based on social media postings of various DFL employees in which eachemployee indicates that he or she provided services for certain named candidates or in certain
specified districts.
2. The complaint alleges that the services of these employees were in-kind contributions fromthe DFL to the supported candidates because they did not fall within the multi-candidate
expenditure exception for services that benefit three or more candidates.
6

3. To reach its conclusion that violations occurred, complainant draws the inference that thenaming of specific candidates or districts on an employee's social media page supports aconclusion that the employee provided services that benefitted only the named candidates orcandidates running in the named districts.
4. Respondent DFL provided offers of proof tending to establish the services of the employees
benefitted three or more candidates.
5. The offer of proof by the DFL did not contradict the facts offered by complainant; rather, they
contradicted the asserted inference.
Based on the analysis and facts, the Board makes the following:
Conclusions of law
1. The complaint, when viewed in the context of the record before the Board, does not give riseto any significant question of material fact.
2. The inference that would be required to support a finding of violations, namely that anemployee's listing of specific beneficiaries of the employees services means that the employee'sservices did not also benefit other candidates, is insufficient to raise a significant question ofmaterial fact when considered in the context of the complete record.
3. The complaint fails to establish probable cause to believe that the alleged violations
occurred.
Based on the analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions of law, the Board issues thefollowing:
OrderThe complaint of the Republican Party of Minnesota regarding the Minnesota DFL State Central
Committee and several of its candidates is dismissed.

/s/ Christian M. Sande_______________________________________
Christian M. Sande, Chair
Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board

7July 5, 2016
Dated: ___________________