Today, a Minnesota judge ordered St. Louis County officials to release Republican Pete Stauber’s email correspondence with the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). In his role as St. Louis County Commissioner, Stauber was caught coordinating with the NRCC via email on the taxpayer’s dime. Stauber and St. Louis County officials have been refusing to release the emails for months, despite multiple requests by local media and a state agency declaring the emails should be public.
DCCC Spokesperson Rachel Irwin issued the following statement on the released emails:
“Pete Stauber has been caught red-handed violating taxpayers’ trust and using government resources to engage in campaign activity that is both unethical and possibly illegal. He’s proven he’s just another corrupt politician who will abuse taxpayer dollars for his own political gain. This October surprise doesn’t help Pete Stauber’s chances one week away from Election Day.”
County emails from Pete Stauber show political maneuvering | Star Tribune
By J. Patrick Coolican
OCTOBER 30, 2018
Pete Stauber once used his St. Louis County e-mail to seek damaging information about U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan’s voting history and forwarded damaging information about another potential opponent to a Republican operative in Washington, according to e-mails released Tuesday by the county.
St. Louis County was forced to turn over the e-mails after Judge Stoney Hiljus ordered the county to do so.
Stauber, the Republican nominee for Congress in the Eighth District, is a St. Louis County commissioner. He used his county e-mail to communicate with the National Republican Campaign Committee, known as the NRCC, which is the election arm of the House GOP caucus in Washington.
In his ruling, Hiljus decided in favor of the Minnesota DFL, which sued the county to get the e-mails after the county rejected a Star Tribune request for the records earlier this year.
Stauber, a retired police officer, is in a tight race with Democrat Joe Radinovich, a former state House member. U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan, a Democrat, is retiring at the end of his term. The district includes Duluth and northeastern Minnesota but stretches down to the northern exurbs of the Twin Cities.
Caroline Tarwid, a spokeswoman for Stauber, said he “respects the court’s decision and the process just as he did when the county looked into this matter and found no wrongdoing.”
The e-mails do not contain the kind of bombshell many Democrats hoped for, and in one of them Stauber tells a recipient to use his private e-mail address.
Still, a few of the e-mails show political activity, despite the St. Louis County’s code of conduct, which reads, “Elected officials will not use St. Louis County equipment in support of their own campaigns for re-election, other candidates for public office, or political organizations.”
After receiving notice that Nolan would be holding a regional meeting on veterans’ issues, Stauber forwarded it to Mike Thom, the regional political director of the NRCC, writing, “Look at this. I need Nolan’s anti-veterans votes to get people there,” seemingly referring to Nolan’s votes on veteran issues.
In another instance, Stauber received an e-mail from a Kirsten Kennedy, a Democrat who also ran for the seat. She reported to Stauber that she had seen Leah Phifer, another Democrat in the race, laughing about injuries Stauber sustained in the line of duty. Kennedy said she was “appalled.” Stauber then forwarded the e-mail to an NRCC operative.
Radinovich’s campaign manager Jordan Hagert released a statement: “These e-mails are clear evidence that Pete Stauber has been openly and knowingly violating the law and county policy to use taxpayer resources to advance his political agenda.”
Whatever the outcome of the election, the judge’s ruling is an important ruling in the realm of open records law.
Earlier in October, a state agency issued an advisory opinion stating the e-mails are public record and should be handed over. The county ignored the ruling.
The order did not elucidate the judge’s reasoning but merely said the plaintiff “has the right to obtain or access the public data requested.”