This is extremely deceptive.

Truth is they are slipping many things into this they don't tell you on the ballot, relying on low information voters.

 

https://www.americanexperiment.org/eight-reasons-to-vote-against-the-lottery-amendment/

 

I saw that in a Jeremy Munson (MN State Rep) FB post ... he did a great job of explaining how deceptive this is.  My daughter filled out her mail-in ballot this weekend and she asked me if I knew anything about it.  I explained it to her and she didn't tell me how she voted, but it was pretty clear to her that it should have been worded completely differently on the ballot.

1 hour ago, Bontz said:

I saw that in a Jeremy Munson (MN State Rep) FB post ... he did a great job of explaining how deceptive this is.  My daughter filled out her mail-in ballot this weekend and she asked me if I knew anything about it.  I explained it to her and she didn't tell me how she voted, but it was pretty clear to her that it should have been worded completely differently on the ballot.

Obviously everyone is for clean water and wildlife habitat.  If it was that simple they wouldn't need it on the ballot.

Lottery funds will now go to DEI groups, and oh yeah.. no oversight of the fund and how the money is spent.  What could go wrong with no accountability or oversight of how public money is spent, especially when dei groups are now in the mix?

They put this on the ballot because no representative would want it on record that they voted for public funding of dei groups, and they know it wouldn't be passed if they put that part on the ballot do they left that part out.  Truth is none of it could go to environmental purposes when there's no oversight.  Not like the state cares about clean water anyway they sell our public land and pristine wetlands to mining companies who will pollute all of it and destroy the ecosystem in the area.

All about $$ as usual with government.

Extremely deceptive and disappointing.

It really should be taken to court over the wording on the ballot, and it is a damn shame that the state and local new agencies in this state are leaving this alone.

19 minutes ago, racinfarmer said:

Extremely deceptive and disappointing.

It really should be taken to court over the wording on the ballot, and it is a damn shame that the state and local new agencies in this state are leaving this alone.

I heard about it so googled it.  I went through a lot of corporate sites that talked about it but didn't mention any of the issues with it.  They just said yes is for clean water and if voted no that the $$ will go into the general fund.  Just typical propaganda crap.  I sent a tip to alpha news on it today as well as some other places.  It really does seem criminal.  Anyone who isn't informed and reads that will just vote yes and have no idea.

5 hours ago, mnstang said:

I sent a tip to alpha news on it today as well as some other places.  It really does seem criminal.  Anyone who isn't informed and reads that will just vote yes and have no idea.

100%!!

I mentioned Jeremy Munson earlier ... this is what he had posted and it aligns with the DEI topic, as well as the concerns for potential land grabs with this proposal (sorry for the longer read):

Please understand and share a few facts about the Constitutional Amendment you are voting on in MN.

Fact: In MN, the government owns over 25% of all the land. Each legislative session, through various environmental bills, the government snarfs up another 15,000-30,000 acres of private land.

Fact: Leaders of tribal nations surrounded by the boundaries of the State of Minnesota have recently been gifted tens of thousands of acres from Minnesota taxpayers and have declared they want more.

Fact: The new committee tasked with reviewing and recommending policies and approvals of spending of the natural resources trust fund will be comprised of 11 members. Two must be citizens of the Ojibwe nation, two members must be from the Dakota nation, and four are chosen specifically on race - all must be non-white. That's 73% of the board, which approves the spending, based solely on nationality or race.

On principle, I support a voluntary tax (lottery tax) to be spent on improving our environment and water. However, the law as passed, specifically prohibits these funds from being spent on drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater projects - which is our most important water and environmental need in our state where we have crumbling rural and metro water infrastructure.

From the bill: "The assets of the fund shall not be used to pay for any costs related to the construction, repair, improvement, or operation of any facility or system that processes wastewater, but may be used to pay for research related to wastewater."

The members of this council will be empowered and stacked with votes to spend billions of dollars purchasing land from private citizens and transferring it to government control or gifting it to tribal nations.

Fact: Taking land from private control and transferring it to government or tribal nations removes that land from the tax base, thereby increasing property taxes for the rest of Minnesotans.

from the bill https://www.revisor.mn.gov/.../0/Session+Law/Chapter/67/

Subd. 2. Membership; terms. (a) The commissioner, in consultation with the commissioners of health and the Pollution Control Agency, must appoint 11 residents of Minnesota to the advisory council, and the appointees must include:

(1) two members who are members of the Minnesota Ojibwe Tribe;

(2) two members who are members of the Minnesota Dakota Tribe; and

(3) four members who identify as Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Asian, or Pacific Islander or as members of a community of color.

Vague language as it appears on your ballot:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to protect drinking water sources and the water quality of lakes, rivers, and streams; conserve wildlife habitat and natural areas; improve air quality; and expand access to parks and trails by extending the transfer of proceeds from the state-operated lottery to the environment and natural resources trust fund, and to dedicate the proceeds for these purposes?”

Don't feed the beast of government gobbling up more private land.

Don't fall for the narrative that these funds will be used for drinking water and to protect storm and waste water from polluting our lakes and rivers. It specifically prohibits such spending.

The legislature is elected to spend tax revenue - let them do their work. Expanding our Constitution handcuffs the legislature and grows the executive branch of government.

Vote NO on Minnesota Amendment 1

17 hours ago, mnstang said:

This is extremely deceptive.

Truth is they are slipping many things into this they don't tell you on the ballot, relying on low information voters.

 

https://www.americanexperiment.org/eight-reasons-to-vote-against-the-lottery-amendment/

 

Holy shit!!!!!  So the official default vote is "yes" if you don't vote at all.  Dem dream!!!!

Edited October 23, 2024Oct 23 by Zambroski

2 hours ago, Zambroski said:

Holy shit!!!!!  So the official default vote is "yes" if you don't vote at all.  Dem dream!!!!

No - The default vote is NO on this.  First thing it says.

However, by voting yes, you are simply transferring funds from the constitutionally set rules of oversights  for this funding that was set in place some 40 years ago that make sure money is spent responsibly, to a different fund that a few DEI appointments can decide to spend the money however they want.

Typical Walz/Dem decisions and poor leadership choices.  It screams fraud before the money is even given to them.  It is worded is such a way to make you feel like “Yeah, the environment, I’m for that” which it is not.

33 minutes ago, Mag6240 said:

No - The default vote is NO on this.  First thing it says.

However, by voting yes, you are simply transferring funds from the constitutionally set rules of oversights  for this funding that was set in place some 40 years ago that make sure money is spent responsibly, to a different fund that a few DEI appointments can decide to spend the money however they want.

Typical Walz/Dem decisions and poor leadership choices.  It screams fraud before the money is even given to them.  It is worded is such a way to make you feel like “Yeah, the environment, I’m for that” which it is not.

This all pencils out...liberally.

Looks like this one passed.  

Good thing we have tall tale Timma back to run the show here.

3 hours ago, racinfarmer said:

Looks like this one passed.  

Good thing we have tall tale Timma back to run the show here.

Yes. We need someone to watch over it to prevent fraud..oh wait.