In MN, the way we pick our candidates for a race is more complicated than most states. There is the primary election, which is the binding decision of who makes the ballot. But earlier than the primary, both parties run an endorsement process. Activists show up typically to an empty school, classrooms divided out by precinct. Then a number of people from each precinct get sent to the endorsement at the state senate or county level, depending on how big geographically the state senate district is. From there, delegates are chosen for the congressional district convention and then statewide. Both parties try to talk forcefully enough to make the endorsement seem binding, but anyone is free to ignore the process and just go for the primary. This is what Gov. Dayton did, but he had the personal wealth to ignore the process, as being endorsed typically means the party will spend money on you. Also, party support can also lead to support from rich people within the party.
Below the fold, we get into how and why the GOP is considering putting restrictions on candidates who do not abide by the endorsement, a move the DFL would no longer need to consider because of our considerable money advantage.
The GOP are considering taking this tough talking about the endorsement into actual penalizations for candidates running against endorsed candidates in the primary.
This article gives more of an over-all feeling that at the last GOP executive meeting, the attendees started to discuss formally penalizing candidates who don't abide by the GOP endorsement. The meat of the change is that anyone who ran against an endorsed candidate in the primary within the past two cycles cannot be endorsed. But the article makes it seem very preliminary and in an infant-like stage.
However, this link spells it out much more clearly in the minutes recorded, indicating concrete ideas were discussed. There is a rebuttal at the bottom, which alludes to the attitude provided by chairman Downey in the first link. But it's pretty clear that specific ramifications were discussed and while it may be an idea in its infancy, they are very concrete and well established seeming.
Oh, and an executive committee meeting is done routinely by both parties and it's where the upper echelon of activists meet to approve their party's operating procedures. The executive committee meeting is like 50-80 people, and I honestly have no idea how they get chosen, as at this point, I usually avoid the endorsement process, which means not being picked for local party leadership and the like. As Gov Dayton points out, "fewer than one-third of 1 percent of those who typically vote in the DFL primary participate in the DFL endorsement process". So why hold up the endorsement process so highly when it's such a self selected group not representative of over-all DFL voters? Or statewide voters, for that matter.
Now comes the question of why the GOP are considering changes. Because they are a bunch of broke-ass bitches, with them being $1.2 million in debt, down from $2 million back in December of 2011, and having just moving headquarters because they were almost evicted from their previously more expensive place. The earlier they have their candidate, the earlier they can consolidate money. And with the GOP in a deep hole in MN, with the the DFL controlling every statewide office and the majority in Congressional state legislative seats, they may never make it unless they do better at rallying together. But, the earlier they have their candidate and consolidate support, the earlier we start running attack ads from our PACs, which are described in the "broke-ass" link. The DFL system is a Koch-like well oiled machine. CO showed us the way, and now we have a system of PAC's funded by a couple of rich people who slam the GOP with attack ads. (The last link is a long story from Mother Jones about how our system works.)
There is also the problem that some major GOP candidates for governor announced their candidacies, while also announcing they don't care about the endorsement. This even includes Rep. Kurt Zellers, who was Speaker of the House from 2011-2012, when the GOP won back the state house in the disasterous 2010 elections. With such a prominent GOPer writing off the endorsement, it starts to make the entire process seem less important. And with the GOP having picked such a horrible candidate in 2010, why wouldn't someone like Zellers realize the obvious; these people are bat-shit Bachmann-loving crazy, why should he listen to them?
And am I wrong in thinking penalizing primary opponents will have the opposite effect? They think it's a great way to dissuade candidates from running in the primary, but it could backfire and make the endorsement even less powerful. The GOP are much more united when it comes to the endorsement process than the DFL, but it wouldn't take much for this type of policy to make the endorsement a nothing-burger. There already is high profile candidate Kurt Zellers saying he doesn't care about the endorsement, and if he runs again later on and polls well, other candidates may decide to ignore the endorsement as well because they know they'll have to face their toughest competition in the primary anyway. Why focusing on a gym full of activists when a candidate can focus on fundraising and primary voters?