Minnesota governor tries political balancing act

Patrick Condon

Tuesday, March 22, 2005 | 11:07 a.m.

ST. PAUL -- Jaws dropped at a recent town hall meeting on Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposed state-tribal casino, when one of the state's most prominent fiscal conservatives uttered a surprising statement.

"This may shock some people, but I'd rather see a tax increase than the state get into the gaming business," said David Strom, president of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota. It sounded like heresy from the leader of the group that originated the "no new taxes" pledge several years ago that's become the centerpiece of Pawlenty's political career.

Strom's organization has taken money from casino opponents in the past. But he said his opposition precedes those donations, and springs from the conservative conviction that government shouldn't be funded by the proceeds of a business.

Social conservatives, too, take issue with state-sponsored gambling, out of the belief that it's not a moral way for the state to get money. It puts Pawlenty, a darling of the right like no other governor in modern Minnesota history, in a risky position as the casino push shapes up as his signature initiative of 2005.

"Conservatives are people of principle and believe that government should be promoting what's good, what builds families, industry and integrity," said Allen Quist, the socially conservative former Republican state lawmaker and candidate for governor. "Gambling is antithetical to all those things."

To Democrats, Pawlenty's embrace of both gambling and the conservative label makes him a hypocrite. What's less clear is whether it will generate a backlash among two of his core constituencies.

"I think it's raising questions in people's minds," said Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council, which is closely tied to the state's evangelical community. "People are asking me, 'Why's he doing this? What's going on?' "

The governor's chief talking point in favor of the casino has been fairness. Initially, Pawlenty asked the Indian tribes that have profited most from casinos to share a portion of their earnings with the state. When they refused, Pawlenty proposed the partnership with three northern Minnesota tribes whose isolation has made it difficult for them to profit from gambling.

"Numerous other states have re-examined their gaming agreements to ensure greater fairness and it's time for Minnesota to do the same," Pawlenty said when he introduced his casino plan. It's calculated to raise as much as $500 million for the state in the next four years, allowing Pawlenty to continue spending on key priorities while not violating his pledge against tax increases.

Recent polls have shown that argument resonating with voters. But it doesn't pacify small-government conservatives like Strom, who believe that state government would become addicted to a stream of casino cash that would keep it growing at an unchecked pace.

"Taxation is the appropriate way for government to fund itself," Strom said. "The fact that it's painful is a good thing, because it makes people vigilant about the way their money is spent. Going for this pain-free type of government -- it's deceptive."

Quist said he's hearing more grumbling from grass-roots conservatives over the plan. Social conservatives may not vote Democrat in 2006, but Quist said such "values voters" often abandon the process entirely.

"The number one rule of politics is do not alienate your base, period," Quist said. "A lot of party leaders have the notion that conservatives don't have anywhere else to go. But they do -- they stay home, they raise their families, they do their jobs."

So far, those consequences haven't been widely seen. Even conservatives openly critical of the casino proposal are sticking with Pawlenty, prizing his opposition to abortion, gay marriage and tax increases.

"It could shave off some points he doesn't really want to lose, but it's not going to lead to a major crack in his political base," Strom said.

For the casino to become a reality, it must survive the legislative process, where opponents from both the right and left will raise these objections and others. In recent days Democrats have notched up their criticism, circulating comments the governor made during a 2003 interview with Minnesota Public Radio where he said it's "not a proper function of government to be running and owning and profiting from gambling operations."