A question that won't get asked

Bill Glahn is quickly becoming one of the most indispensable bloggers around, because he notices things. For example, he saw the following blithe assertions in the Strib:

The Dayton campaign has also gotten an assist from Minnesotans United, the political action committee that grew out of the successful effort to defeat the 2012 gay marriage ban and then pass the 2013 law that made same-sex marriage legal. Minnesotans United assembled one of the most sophisticated grass roots operations the state has seen in years, and has vowed to protect allies like Dayton, who signed the gay marriage bill.

“We encourage our volunteers to volunteer on behalf of the governor,” said Richard Carlbom, the strategist who ran Minnesotans United. The group has shared its lengthy donor list with the DFL.

Emphasis mine. Did you catch that? Glahn did:

So, with whom, exactly was this list shared?  Which list was shared (the ballot fund’s or the much smaller PAC’s list)?  Did the list include the ballot fund’s for-profit corporate donors?  And who, exactly, are included under the term “our volunteers”?

I imagine that the Star Tribune reporters included this detail as evidence of the sophistication of the Dayton campaign:  partnering with a big operation engaged in fighting for a noble cause.

However, in my mind, it raises dozens of questions regarding the coordination between a ballot fund, a nonprofit, a political fund, a candidate fund, and political party units all of whom operate under different rules for disclosure, donors, dollar limits, and donations.

Coordination of this sort is a no-no, particularly if you're a Republican. It would appear that the DFL and its allies can do pretty much what they please, however. Why is that? Well, back to Glahn:

What are the odds these questions will ever be asked, much less answered?

You don't need to consult with Bovada or Zombie Jimmy the Greek to know those odds. More, much more, at the link.