Rep. Kieffer Outlines ‘No’ Vote on Vikings Stadium Bill

The Woodbury Republican said she would have supported the bill if it came down to her vote.

Rep. Andrea Kieffer on Monday voted against the Vikings stadium bill.

But if she had had the swing vote, she would have changed it.

“I was not going to let the bill die,” said Kieffer, a Republican from Woodbury. “If they needed my ‘yes’ vote, I was going to give it.”

The bill passed the House 73-58, and the Senate was expected to debate the matter today.

The main issue for Kieffer was the funding mechanism behind cost overruns for the project. She said she supports racino legislation and user fees for the stadium, but doesn’t want the state’s general fund to be the “backstop” for stadium funding.

She said it makes sense for the state to pay for the general infrastructure for the project but not “granite countertops in the bathrooms.”

Kieffer said she expects the Senate version of the bill to be “very different” and anticipates another vote after the legislation goes through conference committee.

“I don’t want the Vikings to leave,” she said. “But we’ve got to do what’s right for the taxpayers. … I will do everything I can to keep the Vikings.”


Like us on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Sign up for our newsletter

STW May 08, 2012 at 06:05 PM
Rep Kieffer is trying to create a win, win situation for herself. Her goal is for re-election, not legislating. By voting against the bill when it didn't matter (She said she would vote for the bill if she need to), she can't lose. Not saying no one else didn't do this, they did, but her action to the problem is a typical politician answer. It is a calculated move, a move she wants to exploit this Nov..We need politicians that are not always looking to the next election. This is disappointing.
Kris Janisch May 08, 2012 at 09:09 PM
At least they're voting on it now. I heard there was a plan to wait until after the election and hold a special session on the stadium.
STW May 08, 2012 at 09:58 PM
I'm glad they are voting on it too. This is important. And to add to my first comment, I believe Rep Kieffer is a better Representative then she showed with what I call a wishing washing response on the matter. Do what they believe is best, and live with the consequence. In other word, show back bone.
Kris Janisch May 08, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Honestly, I have to confess that I'm a huge Vikings fan. I almost want them to just stick it to us (tax-wise) if it means keeping them here. But I'm not sure it's an either-or proposition.
Edward May 08, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Those who have signed the "no new tax" pledge (most Republicans) are restricted by their promise not to tax. They can use gambling revenues or a "use fee" (a tax that they don't call a tax) that adds a percentage to every ticket sold. But no broad based tax without breaking their pledge and honking off the taxpayer's league -- those guys are big campaign donors and supporting PAC for the Republicans.
Rob May 08, 2012 at 11:53 PM
One thing about this whole process is I have been able to learn a lot more about the process of our legislatures. I also watched some of the voting process and noticed Lillie does not like to vote until the end and ends up voting with the majority. Can this guy not make a decision? I also know who I will not be voting for the next round of elections. Like some, I would not care if my taxes went up to help build a new stadium. It is so much more than just saving the Vikings. It is about attracking other major sporting events, concerts, and possible political caucauses. These events help boost the economy if not one event at a time.
LB May 09, 2012 at 01:46 PM
I agree. I'm furious not only with her "no" vote but her comments in this article. My "no" vote for her in future elections will not come with such commentary. No means no in my book.
Derek M May 09, 2012 at 04:13 PM
One question that puzzles me so is why can't we call for a public referendum for gambling? There seems to be so many people eager to ask for a referendum for spending tax money and I have no problem with that. However, why won't they offer a public referendum on the expansion of gambling. The white earth proposal seemed to make a lot of sense. I'm sure other tribes would not necessarily be thrilled that White Earth got this prime location, but why couldn't we modify the White Earth to where any tribe that wanted to be a part of this could put in their interests into a "gambling group" and split up the proceeds. In my opinion the gambling is already there and we would be able to benefit from some of it instead of just dealing with providing the social service costs. I think this should be brought up next legislative session to pay off the schools, infrastructure, healthcare, stadium, etc.
Kris Janisch May 09, 2012 at 04:21 PM
That's a good question Derek. There will be a few things like that on the ballot this fall, voter ID, gay marriage. Why not gambling?
Joe Salmon May 09, 2012 at 06:02 PM
To Edward, Representative Kieffer has never received a donation from taxpayer's league. You can confirm this by going to the Campaign Finance Board's website.
38 YEAR WDBY RESIDENT May 09, 2012 at 06:28 PM
Kiefers comments would not even escape the washing machine, whis/wash/wish/wash/ just like everything she talks about
Edward May 10, 2012 at 03:34 AM
They don't make donations directly to campaigns. Instead, as a PAC, they support those campaigns with independent expenditures on ads and mailings for the candidates.
Resident 55129 May 10, 2012 at 03:30 PM
She voted No again on the final bill. I will remember this come November
Chris Soukup May 10, 2012 at 11:56 PM
I think her position is fairly easy to understand. She ran on lower spending and voting for the bill would have gone against that. She also understood that keeping the Vikings was so important, she would have gone against thy campaign pledge to keep them here would the stadium have been in danger of failing. The vote difference being what it was, she could vote her conscience and the people still get their stadium. I say well done and kudos. I appreciate her keeping in mind both what she promised and what she heard from constituents.
Chris Soukup May 11, 2012 at 12:22 AM
Edward, you must have missed the anti-Kieffer email blast The Taxpayers League sent out when she publicly supported Racino.
STW May 11, 2012 at 12:24 AM
I would of respected her more if she would have voted for the Vikings all the way, or voted against them all they. In my opinion, that would have shown more character. The way she did it was just safe.
STW May 11, 2012 at 12:32 AM
Sorry, need sleep. You get the idea.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something