If you live in Minnesota and are registered to vote, you’ve probably received one of the Matt Entenza sleazemails attacking current State Auditor Rebecca Otto. Entenza is so desperate to win some statewide post — any post will do, apparently — that he’s been reduced to primarying Otto.
His pointedly unendorsed campaign has all the marks of a typical Entenza production: the gobs of self-funding, the sleazy, expensive, and unsupportable attacks, the apparent obliviousness to how his attacks could well be turned back against him. (I highly recommend reading Sally Jo Sorensen’s series of articles on the subject (most of them are linked in the “Related Articles” box at the bottom of this post) — she owns this story as does no other working blogger or journalist in the state.)
Because Entenza won’t quit with the bogus sleazemailings, I feel compelled to give some blog space to Rebecca Otto’s campaign manager and husband, Shawn Otto, on the subject:
Rebecca Otto has never voted for Voter ID; she campaigned against it. I know. I was with her. In fact, I wrote one of the first pieces about it, which came out of an event she and I hosted.
On July 24, a three-judge panel unanimously rejected Matt Entenza’s charges about Rebecca Otto and Voter ID, as reported by the StarTribune.
The very next day, an Entenza mailer began arriving in homes, repeating the charges anyway, pulling out votes from over a decade ago that other good democrats like Jim Davnie, Paul Thissen and Michael Paymar had also voted for, and portraying them as if they somehow had something to do with Voter ID, and had somehow “denied access” to voters. They didn’t.
Minnesotans like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and to some, this could be dismissed as a simple case of bad taste and worse timing.
But then yesterday a second mailer from Matt Entenza began arriving in Minnesotans’ homes, this one also claiming that Rebecca Otto had voted for Voter ID and “denied access” to voters. She didn’t.
Unlike the first, this mailing cannot be ascribed to bad timing. It was well after the judges ruled against Entenza.
This mailer should cause Minnesota voters to be concerned-about Matt Entenza. Mr. Entenza is running for the top elected financial office in Minnesota. If he is willing to mislead voters even after a three-judge panel ruled against him, how can he be trusted to provide transparency and accountability over government finances?
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Matt Entenza has an established pattern of campaign finance violations and questionable ethics, going back more than a decade, of which this is just the latest, and they have a bearing on his qualifications to be the State Auditor:
Matt Entenza’s claims about Voter ID have nothing to do with the Office of the State Auditor, but they do say a lot about Matt Entenza.
They certainly do.