Minnesota 7th Congressional District DFL candidate Erik Osberg campaigns at a 2025 event in Willmar.
It’s said that about 75 percent of people do research and seek reviews before making a purchase, even for small items such as a toaster, or hiking boots. If that many people did similar research on political candidates, we might have a higher quality slate of candidates, or a better outcome for good governance. Better informed voters would detract from the effectiveness of negative campaign ads.
In the weeks leading up to the primary election Aug. 11, it became tiresome to see all the campaign ads for the open U.S. Senate seat in Minnesota. Outside PAC (Political Action Committee) money is being attributed for much of the negative advertising in the DFL primary between Angie Craig and Peggy Flanagan. (“Outside groups fuel bitter Senate race between Peggy Flanagan and Angie Craig”, MinnPost, Aug. 7).
This will ramp up in many races ahead of the general election Nov. 3. It would not be happening to this extent without the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United, which opened the door to so-called “dark money.” The 2010 ruling allows wealthy elites to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns without disclosure. Jane Mayer’s 2016 book, Dark Money – The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right, is worthwhile but disturbing reading.
Up-close in-person
Seeing the U.S Senate candidates on a stage in front of an audience of hundreds as I did at Minnesota FarmFest Aug. 5, sitting next to one another and acting cordial, seemed incongruous with all the negative ads. Next to Craig and Flanagan sat GOP candidates Michelle Tafoya and Royce White. I almost felt sorry for Brad Schwarze, the GOP-endorsed candidate who was not allowed to participate because of a FarmFest policy that required at least 15 percent support in polls. (MinnPost, Aug. 6: “Commiecrats,’ a snubbed candidate and ‘trade, not aid’ at Farmfest”).
The candidates excuse themselves from responsibility for the negative ads because they claim no connection with the PACs. The best solution for learning about candidates and neutralizing negative ads would be for more voters to make a little more effort to become more familiar with them. At least look at their websites to see what issues and policies they support.
According to a 2025 report by the Minnesota Secretary of State, more than two-thirds of voters in a survey said they get most of their candidate information from local news, including newspapers, radio, and television. From now until the general election, when watching television, I have the ‘mute’ button ready. I don’t recall many negative ads in newspapers, but these days there’s not much political advertising in newspapers anyway.
The Secretary of State’s Voter Engagement, Education, and Improvements report stated: “The largest barrier reported was a lack of information on candidates running for office, especially for local and judicial races. While very few nonvoters responded to the survey, they also indicated that a lack of information on candidates was a significant barrier to voting, and more information on candidates would potentially get them to vote.”
Vote smart
Many people simply vote along party lines. That habit in 2024 has proven to be a disaster for the nation and for democracy. While many voters claim to be independent, only about 10 percent actually are, according to Pew Research. Perhaps they are the ones who do the most research about candidates. Some websites to check out include: Vote Smart, and Ballotopedia.
Journalists and others in civic groups are required to learn about candidates and their backgrounds. News reports from credible reporters and centrist news outlets remain the best source of information about candidates. (See my April 23 post, ‘Pink Slime journalism’). Meeting candidates in person as a reporter provides a bit more understanding of who they are.
Among the U.S. Senate candidates, I met Angie Craig last spring covering an event where she was still ‘testing the waters’ for a campaign. At FarmFest, Michelle Tafoya approached me as I took a photo of her and a staffer walking toward the candidates’ forum. We shook hands and I introduced myself as a reporter covering the candidates’ forum.
At campaign events I met Erik Osberg, the DFL challenger to Michelle Fischbach in the Minnesota 7th Congressional District where I live. He has been very busy campaigning in the sprawling district; Fischbach has been AWOL. Conventional knowledge has her far in the lead, but Osberg is a good candidate who will narrow the gap.
At the forum sitting at the press table not far from Senate candidate Royce White, I made the mistake of making eye contact after he had been ranting about “commiecrats.” He shot a glare that gave me the creeps. And just plain weird, was sitting up-close listening to Mike Lindell in the governor candidate forum.
If I had the opportunity as a reporter, following is a list of questions that I would pose to candidates. It’s far longer and more detailed than would be possible in routine campaign news coverage, but far more in-depth:
- Do you believe that climate change is a real problem, and if so, what can we do about it?
- Should government regulate AI and social media, and if so, how?
- What does the term ‘public servant’ mean to you?
- Which of the following do you believe is most important: The survival of an organization and your position in it, or the mission success of an organization and your role in it?
- What in your view is the current status of the ‘rule of law’ in our nation?
- Describe the proper relationship between church and state.
- Are the three branches of federal government out-of-balance, and if so, how can it be restored and improved?
- For people in poverty, who or what is mostly responsible for their plight?
- What can and should be done about the vast wealth disparity?
- Have you answered these questions with complete honesty to the best of your ability?
I submitted these to the Fischbach and Osberg websites and will do a follow-up if I receive any responses other than boilerplate stuff. I did not include two questions from my original list, perhaps a bit whimsical, that could influence my vote: ‘How many books have you read in the past year?’ and ‘Do you play Wordle, and if so, what is your winning percentage?’
