Card image cap

Donald Lee's Issue Positions (Political Courage Test)

Key

Official Position: Candidate addressed this issue directly by taking the Political Courage Test.
Inferred Position: Candidate refused to address this issue, but Vote Smart inferred this issue based on the candidate's public record, including statements, voting record, and special interest group endorsements.
Unknown Position: Candidate refused to address this issue, or we could not infer an answer for this candidate despite exhaustive research of their public record.
Additional Information: Click on this icon to reveal more information about this candidate's position, from their answers or Vote Smart's research.
Other or Expanded Principles & Legislative Priorities are entered exactly as candidates submit them. Vote Smart does not edit for misspelled words, punctuation or grammar.

Donald Lee has provided voters with clear stances on key issues by responding to the 2014 Political Courage Test.

What is the Political Courage Test?

Minnesota State Legislative Election 2014 Political Courage Test

a) Do you generally support pro-choice or pro-life legislation?
b) Should abortions be illegal after the first trimester of pregnancy?
c) Should abortion be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape?
d) Should abortion be legal when the life of the woman is endangered?
e) Do you support requiring parental notification before an abortion is performed on a minor?
f) Do you support requiring parental consent before an abortion is performed on a minor?
g) Do you support the prohibition of public funds for abortion procedures?
h) Do you support the prohibition of public funds for organizations that perform abortions?
There is only one real question on abortion, whether the lump of flesh is a person. I believe it is. That said, how far should the LAW go in protecting that person. Should every miscarriage become a criminal investigation? I think not. Utimately, the law is a blunt instrument. Even if we have a duty to protect the unborn, we also value our privacy, and there are enforcement actions that would be repugnant and/or in conflict with our other values. This is a hard question, not encapsulated by yes or no answers to simplistic questions.

1) State Spending:Using the key, indicate what state funding levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one level per category; you may use a number more than once.2) State Taxes:Using the key, indicate what state tax levels (#1-6) you support for the following general categories. Select one level per category; you may use a number more than once.3) Budget Stabilization:Indicate which proposals you support (if any) for balancing Minnesota's budget.

a) Education (higher)
b) Education (K-12)
c) Environment
d) Health care
e) Law enforcement/corrections
f) Transportation/infrastructure
g) Welfare
a) Alcohol taxes
b) Cigarette taxes
c) Corporate taxes
d) Gas/Oil taxes
e) Property taxes
f) Sales taxes
g) Income taxes (low-income families)
h) Income taxes (mid-income families)
i) Income taxes (high-income families)
a) Tapping into Minnesota's "rainy day" fund
b) Increasing tuition rates at public universities
c) Reducing or eliminating public worker collective bargaining
d) Reducing state employee salaries AND/OR pensions
e) Instituting mandatory furloughs AND/OR layoffs for state employees
f) Reducing benefits for Medicaid recipients
Spending is key. Priorities are essential - having them, and keeping them. The courage to say "no" is also vital. (and often absent) Much more effort on management, and ensuring that dollars spent are spent well. Recent revelations of enormous waste in the HMOs that run Medicaid for the state are a good example. This demands scrutiny. The state should stop trying to do everything. It should do its core, essential functions, and do them well and efficiently. Local things that are not appropriate to have the entire state pay for, should be reduced or eliminated.
Taxes should be levied to pay for those essential functions of the state. They should NOT be used to "fine tune" an economy, nor to favor some businesses over others, or to attempt to do social engineering. Taxes are generally too high, and at the corporate and high-earner levels, they are driving people and companies out of the state. This needs to be fixed, but should be fixed by fixing spending first. (see above) Spending **IS** taxation. Every dollar spent must be taxed, either now or in the future.
Tapping the "rainy day" fund is like hiding something by throwing it "way up high". It comes back down. Controlling the budget is about defining priorities, sticking to them, and saying "no". The demand to spend is infinite. That's basic economics. The current administration denies this, thinking that if it raises taxes enough, all "needs" will be met. That is simply not true. What's worse, they "bake in" future deficits by taking on commitments without future plans to finance them (expanded Medicaid). Good leadership goes one step beyond keeping priorities, and rallies stakeholders to support the choices.

a) Do you support limits on the following types of contributions for state candidates?

1) Individual
2) Political Action Committee
3) Corporate
4) Political Party
b) Should candidates for state office be encouraged to meet voluntary spending limits?
c) Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
d) Do you support the use of an independent AND/OR bipartisan commission for redistricting?
e) Do you support requiring a government-issued photo identification in order to vote at the polls?
Political speech is the most precious of our first amendment freedoms. Limits and reporting requirements on political activity is an affront to that freedom, and for those involved in political activity, a burden that hinders that activity and suppresses involvement by the public. I do not support these laws. Voter ID speaks to the integrity of elections, which is essential for the consent of the governed. Without confidence that elections are fair and free - we do not have that consent. It is foolish to think that there is no fraud. Think Chicago in 1960. Voter ID is essential.
a) Do you support capital punishment for certain crimes?
b) Do you support alternatives to incarceration for certain non-violent offenders, such as mandatory counseling or substance abuse treatment?
c) Do you support legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana?
d) Should a minor accused of a violent crime be prosecuted as an adult?
e) Should a minor who sends sexually-explicit or nude photos by cell phone face criminal charges?
f) Do you support the enforcement of federal immigration laws by state and local police?
Like other priorities, enforcement should be limited to those things where the public is threatened. It is not wise to burn our enforcement energy chasing kids smoking joints when we have violent criminals and jihadists threatening us. I do believe that punishment of crime should be swift, certain. Justice should be fair. More effort should be spent on courts and administration, and management of the judiciary to keep them honest, and ensure that they do their jobs properly. Long waits for trials are a problem.
a) Do you support reducing government regulations on the private sector?
b) Do you support increased state funding for job-training programs that re-train displaced workers?
c) Do you support expanding access to unemployment benefits?
d) Do you support providing financial incentives to the private sector for the purpose of job creation?
e) Do you support government spending as a means of promoting economic growth?
f) Do you support providing direct financial assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure?
g) Do you support an increase of the minimum wage?
Government cannot create jobs. It stands in the way, sometimes necessarily. The best stimulus is a good business environment that makes starting, running, and expanding a business profitable. Bailouts should not happen - whether for large corporations or homeowners who can't pay their mortgages. Freedom depends on us shouldering the consequences of choices. Bailouts push our errors onto someone else - the taxpayer. So called "minimum wage" makes low-wage jobs illegal. That helps no one but politicians who tout it, and those who compete with those who employ those workers. It raises unemployment with the most vulnerable. It's bad policy.
a) Do you support the national Common Core State Standards initiative?
b) Do you support a merit pay system for teachers?
c) Is the tenure process for public school teachers producing effective teachers?
d) Should parents be allowed to use vouchers to send their children to any school?
e) Do you support state funding for charter schools?
f) Do you support the state government providing college students with financial aid?
g) Should illegal immigrants who graduate from Minnesota high schools be eligible for in-state tuition at public universities?
Innovation is key to educational improvement. Statewide and national standard, that dictate in detail how local schools operate, stand squarely in the way of innovation, and the ability of local schools to manage the educations they provide. The best - only - way to "fix" our education is to restore local control of schools, including the ability of local administration, teachers and parents to hire and fire teachers based on their performance, rather than strictly based on union rules, as is done today. Untie the hands of the local schools!
a) Do you support state funding for the development of alternative energy?
b) Do you support state funding for the development of traditional domestic energy sources (e.g. coal, natural gas, oil)?
c) Do you support state funding for improvements to Minnesota's energy infrastructure?
d) Do you support state funding for open space preservation?
e) Do you support government regulations of greenhouse gas emissions?
Markets should drive energy generation, not politics. Taxpayer money should not be used to boost this season's fashionable energy source. Ethanol was the savior until we discovered how badly it was misjudged. Wind is fashionable now. Solar is being pushed. Let the market function. The state should stop trying to dictate outcomes. Even if you assume the worst case scenario with global warming, Minnesota's contribution is so small, that we could reduce it to zero and have zero impact on the world climate. It is wrongheaded to impose huge costs, when nothing is to be gained.
a) Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
b) Should background checks be required on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows?
c) Should citizens be allowed to carry concealed guns?
d) Should a license be required for gun possession?
The 2nd amendment is an important right,and should be defended. There are good reasons for law abiding citizens to be armed, and no reason that responsible citizens should be harassed. So called "loopholes" in gun laws, and suggestions of closing them bring us to a world where the government is tracking every firearm. This is extremely unwise, and I oppose it. I should be able to give my deer rifle to my grandson without government scrutiny.
a) Do you support a universally-accessible, publicly-administered health insurance option?
b) Do you support expanding access to health care through commercial health insurance reform?
c) Do you support interstate health insurance compacts?
d) Do you support Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act?
e) Do you support requiring individuals to purchase health care insurance?
f) Do you support monetary limits on damages that can be collected in malpractice lawsuits?
g) Do you support allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients for medicinal purposes?
Health care is goods and services, and someone has to pay. Current policy pretends that we can have care paid for by someone else. That simply does not work. No free lunch. Insurance is a deal between me and someone else for him to assume my unexpected liability for a fee. He wins if I stay healthy. I get my bills covered if I get sick. The recent changes to insurance by the PPACA are like requiring fire insurance companies to sell insurance to people whose houses are already on fire. It doesn't work. Markets work, like it or not.
a) Do you support same-sex marriage?
b) Do you support the inclusion of sexual orientation in Minnesota's anti-discrimination laws?
c) Do you support the inclusion of gender identity in Minnesota's anti-discrimination laws?
I see neither gay nor straight. I see people. The law needs to apply equally to all. There are differences between men and women. Family law recognized those differences. The redefinition of marriage swept those distinctions away. I think that was very unwise. Freedom of conscience means not being forced to participate in activities you don't want to. Running a business is not license for an activist to force that business to support his political statement. The activists pushing the "gender identity" provisions above are trying to impose their worldview on everyone. It is political correctness, enforced.
My top priority is in my oath of office - to protect and defend the constitution of Minnesota. That means restoring self government - first at the individual level, and then in St Paul. Omnibus bills, poor judicial oversight, proliferation of regulation and taxation, and expansion of state functions far beyond proper limits all need to be addressed. My answer to the normal question: "How will you propose to tax your neighbors to give people in your district what they want?" is "I won't. That is inappropriate. I will work to write prudent law that applies equally to all."

Vote Smart does not permit the use of its name or programs in any campaign activity, including advertising, debates, and speeches.

arrow_upward