Candidate blog

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

Carbon Dividend

Whenever I hear a presentation on the carbon fee/dividend plan, it comes off sounding like a plan that would provide a Universal Basic Income derived from oil revenues. It is after all a public resource and perhaps citizens should be getting some revenue from that resource much like the Alaska Permanent Fund derived from oil revenues. The fund has paid an annual dividend since 1982 that has been as high as $2,072 per person, or $8,288 for a family of four.

Still, when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. I started getting suspicious when I heard the big oil companies were supporting a carbon fee/dividend. The plan would add a fee to fossil fuels based on the CO2 equivalent emissions of fossil fuels. Consumers would pay higher costs on virtually everything because energy is a substantial cost of production for most products. The fee would then be distributed to each citizen offsetting the higher cost. Clearly, it’s not a dividend based on revenue like the Alaska plan. It’s more like a sales tax where the consumer gets a rebate at the end of the year. In theory, low wage earners would get a larger dividend than they pay in fees but I’ve yet to see any actual numbers that would substantiate that theory.

In global markets, the impact becomes much more complicated. Import fees would be imposed to encourage foreign producers to also implement the carbon fee and discourage companies from migrating to no fee regions. American consumers would still pay higher prices for those fees but there would be no dividend as the fees would remain in the country of origin. Oil exports would receive a rebate. That seems to incentivize exporting U.S. oil and allowing consumers to pay the higher cost for foreign oil.

All of this will presumably be balanced out by tariffs and trade agreements. Every product produced would essentially require a carbon fee adjustment in an environment where it may be difficult to determine if it was produced with fossil fuels. I can’t imagine the complexity of that.

The fee would affect the real cost of using fossil fuels and should create incentives for greater efficiency, alternative material sourcing, and renewable energy sources but it is not clear that these alternatives can match the economic growth demands of today’s economic models. That goes to the real problem of projected economic growth that exceeds the foreseeable capacity of the planet. That problem is not being addressed by a recirculating tax rebate plan.

That brings me to what’s in it for the corporate denizens of wealth. The plan they support which of course is the only plan our congress would possibly adopt was drafted by the Climate Leadership Council, that includes a long list of major oil producers like ExxonMobile and BP as well as many other large corporations like GM and Pepsico. Their proposal provides for a carbon tax in lieu of environmental regulations including EPA’s regulatory authority of CO2 emissions, repeal of the Clean Power Plan, and an end to federal and state tort liability for emitters.”

Here the theory goes, that market forces will eliminate the need for these regulations. In an environment of ever-increasing wealth inequality, with congress determining the market forces, I have a pretty clear idea of who the winners and losers will be.

MN ballot access among worst in the nation


Minnesota Senate Bill SF 752,

Minnesota House Bill HF 708

(Ballot Access Inclusiveness Bill)



This proposal contains a comprehensive set of reforms to improve and modernize Minnesota's outdated statutory definitions of political parties. It encompasses revisions and modifications to arbitrary petitioning requirements, percentages, and timelines that as currently exist, create and sustain exclusivity to ballot access for the main two parties. Goals are to bring Minnesota's prohibitive standards in-line with neighboring states, to eliminate unconstitutional and inequitable restrictions, and to harmonize the various statutes while keeping robust system integrity and encouraging democratic participation. A formal request is hereby made for committee hearings to discuss these matters.



Section 1: Revises major political party threshold percent from 5% to 1%, for both direct petitioning and election results methods.(for reference WI, SD are at 1%, IA is at 2%).

Section 2: Modifies our system into recognition of two simple tiers of political parties versus the current three tiers. (to become major and minor only, like all other states).

Section 3: Allows petitions to be on common size 8-1⁄2x11 letter size paper(vs 8-1/2x14).

Section 4: Modifies oath on nominating petitions to allow signors to still participate in the major party primaries. (“I solemnly swear that I know the contents and purpose of this NOMINATING petition, that I do not intend to vote at the primary election for the office for which this nominating petition is made, and that I signed this petition of my own free will.”)

Section 5: Revises statute to allow signors to sign more than one nominating petition.

Section 6: Modifies the number of signatures required into ratios of flat numbers based on district size for state, county, and municipal races (400 for State Senate, 200 for State Rep, 200 for municipals, versus the current statutes set at 500 for all).

Section 7: Expands the days allowed to collect signatures from 14 to 88, by attaching the window to the general election vs the primary election (in alignment with the statutory window we have for Presidential electors). (WI gives 70 days, SD 112 days, IA 140 days).

Section 8: AMENDMENT IS FILED TO REMOVE THIS SECTION (to give a political party the ability to approve a candidate’s affiliation with it prior to filing for primary ballot).

Section 9: Addresses special election parameters. It adds 7 extra days for the SOS to conduct, adds 9 days to the (5 day)filing window, and reduces the number of nominating petition signatures required to half per the office sought.



Table 1. Petition signature requirements for major (recognized) party status



Table 2. Petition requirements and collection periods

Military Draft challenges the ERA


Ironically the demise of the second wave feminist movement was the one piece of legislation fundamental to the concept of equality and basic human dignity, the Equal Rights Amendment, ERA was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal rights for women. The National Woman’s Party had introduced the Equal Rights Amendment to every congress since 1923 until the feminist movement finally saw passage in the House in 1970 and the Senate in 1972.

The Republican Party included support of the ERA in its platform beginning in 1940, renewing the plank every four years until 1980. There was strong opposition in the democratic party from labor groups including the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Nurses Association under the presumption that working class women needed government protection. Eugene McCarthy, leader of the Anti-war movement in the Democratic Party, was also chief author of the ERA.

Initially public support for the ERA was strong. Within a year after its passage in the Senate the ERA had been ratified by thirty states. Opposition to the ERA quickly organized around the protection of women. Phyllis Schlafly became the spokesperson for the Stop ERA movement emphasizing a threat to the security of middle-aged housewives. Organizers claimed women would lose their right to alimony and child custody.

Religious conservatives, Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and Roman Catholics argued that the amendment would guarantee universal abortion rights, same sex marriage, and eliminate single-sex bathrooms. By 1977 only five additional states had ratified the amendment, three short of the required thirty-eight. By 1996 men had reasserted the “traditional marriage,” when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act.

Philp A. Randoph, founder of the Negro American Labor Council (NALC) initiated the March on Washington in 1963 where Martin Luther King gave his infamous I Have a Dream speech. Neither of these groups felt women should be included in the Civil Rights Act. Black Women argued that black families were heavily dependent on women’s income and discrimination against women would be damaging to black families. The cause of black women was largely responsible for the inclusion of sex and gender in Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964.

On the basis of Title VII, Women continued fighting for equity in the courts, fighting for custody, fighting for alimony, and ultimately fighting for their very lives against the threat of domestic violence. In 1970 only 13 percent of families were headed by a single parent. By 1996 that number had doubled with 84 percent of these families headed by women. Dissolving family values fueled a divorce industry that would grow to fifty billion dollars by 2005.

The African American civil rights movement was split between civil disobedience and Black Power. The feminist movement was divided between empowerment and protectionism.

Perhaps the most effective tactic of the ERA opposition movement threatened that women would lose their exemption from the draft. A new chapter in the ERA story began this week when U.S. District Court Judge Gray Miller declared that exempting women from registering for the draft violates the Constitution's equal protection principles. Attorney Marc Angelucci, representing the National Coalition for Men, says, "There really is no more excuse to only require men to register."

The #MeToo movement is demanding greater protection for women against sexual assault and domestic violence at the same time income and social inequality are expanding. How we define equals rights is a challenging discussion that is clearly taking on new dimensions.


Is Money in Politics about campaign finance?


I am running for U.S. Senate against Amy Klobuchar. I am positioned against her according to the three fastest rising costs in America today…war, health care, and education. We can reduce spending on endless wars, nearly 2/3 of our budget, and invest in health care reform and education… for the future strength of our economy.

Like a majority of voters, I believe that we need a strong third party movement to address the polarization and gridlock in our two party system.

It’s less about Paula and more about our election process and the enormous influence of money in politics.

It’s very difficult for 3rd parties to engage the public and challenge the messaging of marketing campaigns from the major parties.

Paula isn't even listed in the Star Tribune voter guide. Minnesota Public Radio would not include Paula in their state fair debate between Amy Klobuchar and Jim Neuberger.

Paula was at the state fair all 12 days talking to voters and never once heard from the media.

MinnPost published an interview with Angie Craig where she states that Paula was the reason she lost in 2016…

We refute that claim. We’ve looked at the data too.

We know that Paula's vote comes from disenfranchised voters from both sides of the isle. We shared that response with MinnPost

Minnpost refused to print our response. They continue to support the spoiler narrative, ignoring the fact that Independent voters have no voice in the political discussion.

That’s unacceptable

I’d like to say to anyone who has never voted or perhaps given up on voting.

This campaign is a unique opportunity

I’m asking people to come out an voted on November 6th

I want people to know that 5% is a victory, a real path to real reform.

And that’s what we need!

Position statement on sulfide mining

It is said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I remember!


In the 1960s the Nashua River was starved of oxygen, biologically dead, and one of the ten most polluted rivers in the United States. The sludge-filled river, which flows through New Hampshire and Massachusetts, was a different color every day, depending on what was discharged that day. (Moyer 2014). I lived in Nashua in 1968 and I remember the condition of this river.





I remember Love Canal, one of the most infamous toxic waste sites, still seeping toxins 35 years later. (Associated Press 2013). I remember when the EPA Superfund was established in 1980. There are currently 1,317 Superfund sites across the U.S. including multiple sites in Minnesota(Johnson 2017) There are 21 sites that Environmental Protection Agency regulators have targeted “for immediate and intense attention.” including an abandoned copper mine in Nevada (Brady 2017)



This long-term impact results from a lack of regulation and a willingness to borrow from the future to satisfy short-term productivity. The raucous calls for deregulation express a desire to return to this model of environmental exploitation and borrow from the future of our children and our children’s children. Drilling leases, pipelines, burning coal, even killing wolves are examples of this desire to exploit the environment for personal gain and short-term goals. In Minnesota, sulfide mining is one of those critical environmental concerns.


The Twin Metals proposal, recently revived by Washington, is projecting approximately 2 billion tons of copper over a thirty-year time frame, equal to 66 million tons annually. (Mining Technology). The PolyMet proposal originally projected 69.4 million tons per annum (PolyMet Mining) but they have also suggested that would rise to 118 million tons per annum over a twenty-year time frame. (Marcotty 2018). According to the International Copper Study Group, the Global production of copper in 2017 was 19.4 million tons. ( International Copper Study Group, 2017). The two copper mining projects combined are projecting a four to ten fold increase in copper production. That would certainly depress copper prices substantially in the near term until the demand for copper catches up with production. That should be a concern for investors but if the companies go bankrupt, it’s a major concern for taxpayers as well. The numbers don’t add up.


The proposal is offering rapid economic expansion over a very brief period of twenty or thirty years, while likely suppressing the ongoing economic development in other sectors of the economy. The economic consequences would be similar to what happened when the iron ore market collapsed. That alone would make it untenable as a long-term regional development plan.


The more salient issue, however, continues to be the environmental impact. Certainly, no one is suggesting draining sulfuric acid directly into the watershed. According to the reports, modern sulfide mining is 100% safe but translating engineering designs into actual production is rarely 100%. Unanticipated events and failures do occur. The Mount Polley mine disaster in British Columbia illustrates the potential and the disastrous consequences. Neither company, Twin Metals nor PolMet, has any safety track record for sulfide mining. (Kohls 2018)



What’s required, is a comprehensive policy based on long-term strategies. The economy of Minnesota’s Arrowhead region has evolved and diversified since iron ore mining diminished in the 1980’s. Any potential for short-term economic gains threatens more diversified and sustainable economic developments. This area is rich in resources for the development of renewable and sustainable initiatives in energy and agriculture. Combined with the potential for long-term environmental impact and the risk of economic failure, there is no justification to proceed with any existing sulfide mining proposal. I am categorically opposed to the PolyMet land swap proposal and sulfide mining in Minnesota.



Associated Press, November 2, 2013 | 11:03pm “Love Canal’ still oozing poison 35 years later” New York Post, Metro. Retrieved August 30, 2018, from


Brady Dennis, December 8, 2017 “EPA lists 21 toxic Superfund sites that need ‘immediate and intense’ cleanup” Washington Post, Energy and Environment. Retrieved August 30, 2018, from


International Copper Study Group, 2017 Retrieved August 30, 2018, from


Johnson, David Updated: March 22, 2017 3:33 PM ET “Do You Live Near Toxic Waste? See 1,317 of the Most Polluted Spots in the U.S.” Time, Health. Retrieved August 30, 2018, from


Kohls, Dr. Gary G. Global Research, February 22, 2018, “British Columbia’s Mount Polley Copper Mining Disaster of 2014” Retrieved August 30, 2018, from


Marcotty, Josephine, June 8, 2018 — 10:23pm “Prospect of larger PolyMet mine sparks demand for more review”, Star Tribune, Local, Retrieved August 30, 2018, from


Moyer, Ellen, Ph.D. 07/07/2014 12:46 pm “How a Housewife Transformed an Open Sewer into a Swimmable River” Huffpost, Blog. Retrieved August 30, 2018, from


Myers, John, December 22, 2017 at 4:09 pm “White House resurrects proposed Twin Metals mine near BWCA ”, Pioneer Press, News, Retrieved August 30, 2018, from


Mining Technology > Twin Metals Minnesota Retrieved August 07, 2020, from


PolyMet Mining > NorthMet Project > NorthMet at a Glance, “PolyMet NorthMet Project at a Glance” Retrieved August 30, 2018, from

Beyond Pride - In memory of Thurman Blevins


In memory of Thurman Blevins

It has been reported that I am the first openly Transgender woman to run for the U.S. House of Representatives back in 2014. I am the first openly transgender woman in the state of Minnesota to be endorsed by a major party. This weekend I marched in the Minneapolis Pride Parade in celebration of the LGBTQ community. I am proud of the progress we have made. Yet, I remain conflicted about the enormousness separation of wealth and privilege that continues to plague our society. I can readily reflect on my own experiences of isolation, threats, prejudice, and persecution from police and the courts. I do so, not to compare my own experience with that of other marginalized communities but to emphasize a need to understand the cause of individual communities: to understand the intersection and find common purpose.

There is a hazard in trying to build coalition by erasing individual identities for the appearance of common purpose. That is the fallacy of nation-building: assimilating communities and deciding who shall be part of the protected community and who represents a disadvantage or threat to that community. The LGBTQ community struggles with the same gender equity issues that plague our society at large. The issues of the gay men are not the same for the lesbian community and neither is the same for the transgender community which intersects both genders. The issues of sexuality are not the same as the issues of gender.

It is equally hazardous to erase the individual struggles of other marginalized communities under the banner of People of Color. The issues of Mexican border immigration are not the same for descendants of the Atlantic slave trade. They are not the same for immigrants and war refugees of other nations torn by American imperialism. They are not the same for Jewish populations conflicted by a government that supports both Zionism and anti-antisemitism. They are not the same for Muslim populations persecuted primarily for their religious beliefs. This list is not exhaustive. It is only the communities where I have had significant engagement.

So I return to the issue of common purpose. I ran my first campaign in 2014 on the heels of the historic Minnesota Vote No campaign: the struggle for same-sex marriage. Even as I worked hard for it and celebrated its passage, I remained conflicted about the true significance of a reform that granted a great privilege to some but failed to address the enormous injustice of a government ordinance over family values. At the time of the marriage debate, I myself was engaged in a struggle with the family court to protect the rights of my son to be with a transgender parent. I am fully cognizant of the abuses of our foster care system, foreign adoptions, and the separation of indigenous families and immigrants at our southern border. I am fully aware of the abuses of the Violence Against Women Act, claiming to protect women while failing to protect the most vulnerable, fully protect the rights of children, and address the fundamental causes of sexual violence and domestic abuse. We have empowered, police, prosecutors, judges, and lawyers; even ICE, the DEA, and border patrol, but we have not empowered the people who are supposedly served by these institutions. As a nation, we have given up our humanity in favor of the rule of law. We have forgotten who makes the laws and how indiscriminately those laws are enforced. That issue of indiscriminate enforcement is exactly why “All Lives Matter” is an irrelevant retort to the issue of “Black Lives Matter”. Without equal protection under the law, there is no law. Without proper review of the law, there is no order. Therein lies the common purpose of all marginalized communities. It is meaningless to have equal rights if we do not have equal protection under the law and the institutions that enforce the law.

Police have become the focus for the failures of our criminal justice system. Police are on the front lines, enforcing that system of racial and ethnic disparity. They do have a role to play in addressing the bias within their own community and ensuring their own integrity. They can not be held blameless by any measure of quality for the services they do provide. Still, they are only the face of a much deeper issue.

On Saturday, I was in Winona to speak at a protest against the separation of children from their families at the Mexican border. There is no justification for this blatant display of inhumanity. We are a nation of immigrants and many of our ancestors came here for the same reasons: to escape war, persecution, and famine. The cause of this immigration can easily be traced to American drug enforcement policies and the global inequality of wealth. It is again reflective of a governing class that seeks wealth and power over social accountability. It is not an issue of law; it is a failure of leadership.

In the evening of Saturday, June 23rd, 2018, I received reports of another police shooting of a young black man in the streets of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Thirty-year-old Thurman Blevins was shot and killed by Minneapolis police. Whatever “the law” decides, there is absolutely no justification for this blatant display of inhumanity. Sunday morning I am at the staging area for the Pride parade. The parade is delayed for over an hour because of a protest against police brutality. I reflect on the first pride parade nearly 40 years ago with 50 people, half of whom marched and the other half who remained behind to support the marchers and bail them out of jail. I am reminded that Pride originated as a protest against police brutality and I am recognizing what it has become: a corporate sponsored celebration of individual expression. I am realizing how little we have impacted the systemic systems of oppression and wealth inequality.

After the Pride Parade, at 4 PM, I am at the Minneapolis fourth Police precinct examining just how little progress we’ve made on major social justice issues. At 7 PM, I am at the vigil in North Minneapolis where the shooting occurred. I cannot begin to relate to you the depth of human emotion surrounding family and friends and community brought together by such an event: the anger, the emotional pain, and the fear.

There are many politicians there. I have heard the promises they have made to this community. I understand the lack of credibility. The solutions exist. The cost of mass incarceration far exceeds the cost of early intervention and prevention. When police exist primarily to enforce criminal prosecution, they have no role in social intervention and reform. We need entirely new agencies to deal with public health issues of poverty, mental health, drug addition and issues which are not considered victimless: domestic violence, child abuse, sexual violence, and gun violence. What is lacking is the will to implement them. It is evidenced in the promise that they will fix the problem once they are elected. It is a promise this community has heard too many times.

It is a fundamental fallacy, that one must win in order to create change. For the people, we must find common purpose and change the political dialogue. That’s how we win. I am proud to stand against the establishment of wealth and power. I am proud to see myself as a member of all marginalized communities, even as we have yet to realize our common purpose and stand together for a shared vision of liberty and justice for all.



I am posting for comment the position of the Sex Workers Outreach Project.


Sex work is work, and sex workers rights are labor rights. The criminalization of the sex industry exacerbates violences against sex workers, severs them from vital systems of support, and pushes sex trafficking further underground putting their lives at greater risk to violence. It is necessary to stand in solidarity with the sex workers’ rights movement, recognizing that labor exploitation is a violation of human rights. We support sex workers’ fight for decriminalization as well as policies that protect their health and safety.

I do support their position. It is consistent with my more general position that the laws which empowers the justice system to deny women control over their reproductive health, sexuality, and relationships continues to enforce gender inequity, domination and exploitation of women, and a double standard of moral oppression. I have seen and experienced similar failings in the Violence Against Women Act which has led to abuses of the system in divorce and child custody, failed to provide meaningful intervention and prevention, and commonly fails to protect the most vulnerable.


OF COURSE, I SHOULD BE THERE! 50,000 people are expected to attend including 20,000 students protesting an intolerable level of gun violence and the growing threat against our young people.

I am a politician and these events are the place where politicians publicize their support for change. But it would be more accurate to say, this is where politicians empathize with constituents about the profound lack of inactivity in our government around major social issues like gun control. Because the true positions of our politicians are reflected in the bills they sponsor, the way that they vote, and the issues that they fight for.

I am also a member of the League of Women Voters. Our volunteers will be there registering voters to ensure they raise their voice at the ballot box in November and I should be there.

But I will not be there. Like millions of Americans I have lost faith in a political establishment that polarizes the issues, tells us it’s complicated, and beseeches us to be realistic. The time has arrived for a new political paradigm: a political party that serves the interests of the people. I will be at Rondo Library in St Paul working with the Green Party to secure their endorsement and join with the national Movement for a People’s Party because we have two major parties that have embraced global imperialism, the manufacture and sale of guns, weapons exports, and the militarization of our society.

The mass shootings, the police gun violence against people of color, even the expanding assault on immigrates are just multiple faces of the same issue: a political system so grossly dependent on the wealth of corporate capitalism that they are incapable of representing their constituents.


Gun Violence

Political polarization forces us to focus on the consequences of gun violence which have reached intolerable levels for most Americans. It is particularly evident watching America’s youth rise up in protest. It is an issue of great urgency which must be addressed but we see a disturbing level of inactivity and complacency from our political leadership.

Our focus on the consequences and what appear to be the obvious solutions only takes us part way. Too often we fail to recognize the political and economic narratives that drive the polarization of politicized issues. That political narrative is one of individual freedom. A corporate owned media has persuaded us to believe that guns represent civil liberties and self-preservation. The data supporting that narrative is extremely sparse when compared to the overwhelming sacrifice of victims and families impacted by gun violence.

That narrative supports the manufacture and sale of guns, as well as the broader issues of global imperialism, weapons exports and the militarization of our society. It undermines the reality of a society that has lost faith in our government, fostering a disturbing realization that our government can no longer protect us. The counter-narrative is not one of banning guns but rather restoring accountability in our political process, equity in the institutions of American justice, and balance in our economy. Perhaps then, we can begin to accept that guns will never make us free.


"In 1966, the organizers of NOW, The National Organization of Women, recognized that equality demanded economic independence for women, requiring a social restructuring that wouldn’t simply create employment opportunity for women but create economic value for the work done by women. Community work and childrearing would have to be shared more equally by husband, wife, and society.

Paula_Overby.jpgIndustrialization and technology are male spaces and war is the ultimate manifestation. The politics of wealth and power has functioned to exclude women from these spaces.

“A woman's place is in the home:” a notion that has trivialized the role of women in society for centuries, perhaps since the dawn of property rights. Female spaces are the foundations of society: family, childcare, education, health care, and social organizing.

We have created a narrative of gender conflict where women fight for economic and social status by gaining entry to male spaces in a society that continues to devalue nurses, teachers, social workers, and childcare, highly skilled and demanding professions that offer little social mobility. We sexualize women, but deny them the right to fairly negotiate; rather, dominating them through false narratives about a protected class. Those protections would generally be unnecessary if women had true equality in American society.

As a transgender woman I have lived experience in both genders. I have experienced both sides of the issue: the indignity of being discounted, minimized, and ignored as well as the loss of due process perpetuated by the false allegations of political and economic agendas. 

The #MeToo movement is a symptom of broader social issues.  We must welcome the discussion but we must avoid suppressing the broader discussion. We must change the social narrative around gender equity, not by pressuring women into male spaces, but rather by valuing what women do, defining solidarity, not by class status but according to common purpose. We need to shift the narrative of wealth and power towards one of cultural evolution."