Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 211B. FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MS 2024 [Repealed, 2025 c 39 art 2 s 69]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case: Abrahamson v. St. Louis Cnty. Sch. Dist., 819 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Abrahamson v. St. Louis Cnty. Sch. Dist., 819 N.W.2d 129 (Minn. 2012). · cites it 38× “The complaint also alleged that the District violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 (2010) by disseminating false statements in connection with the ballot question.”
Riley v. Jankowski, 713 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 37× “32; (3) the panel of administrative-law judges that heard Riley’s complaint erred in finding that relators violated Minn.Stat. § 211B.06, subd. 1; and (4) the disclaimer requirement of Minn.”
State v. Jude, 554 N.W.2d 750 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 28× “This appeal is from a pretrial order dismissing an indictment charging respondent Thaddeus Victor Jude with the gross misdemeanor offense of disseminating false political campaign material in violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 (1994). We affirm. FACTS Jude ran for the Sixth…”
Abrahamson v. St. Louis Cnty. Sch. Dist., 802 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 33× “06 (2010), by expending more than $750 related to the ballot question and knowingly failing to file financial reports; Minn.Stat. § 211B.06 (2010), by disseminating material that included false statements concerning the effect of the ballot question; and Minn.”
Fine v. Bernstein, 726 N.W.2d 137 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 17× “The panel did find the following three statements in the flyer to be in violation of Minn.Stat. § 211B.06: (1) More funding for speedy removal of trees infected by Dutch Elm disease and replant new trees? — Doesn’t Support; (2) Provide superintendent with a $500,000 slush fund?…”
281 Care Comm. v. Ross Arneson, 766 F.3d 774 (8th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 211B.06, subd. 1. Other than a source protected by the FCPA exemption for “news items or editorial comments by the news media,” anyone can lodge a claim under § 21 IB.”
Rickert v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 161 Wash. 2d 843 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “271 (West); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 211B.06 (West); Mont. Code Ann.”
281 Care Comm. v. Arneson, 638 F.3d 621 (8th Cir. 2011). “Minn.Stat. § 211B.06, subd. 1 (2008). Minnesota has a long history of regulating knowingly false speech about political candidates; it has criminalized defamatory campaign speech since 1893.”
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Kelley, 291 F. Supp. 2d 1052 (D. Minnesota 2003). · cites it 4× “See Minn.Stat. § 211B.06. For decades prior to Watergate, Minnesota had campaign reporting requirements and spending limits.”
Repub. Party v. Amy Klobuchar, 381 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “Minn. Stat. Ann. § 211B.06, subd. 1 (West Supp.”
Minnesota RFL Caucus v. Mike Freeman, 33 F.4th 985 (8th Cir. 2022). “In Care Committee I, the plaintiffs brought a First Amendment challenge to Minn. Stat. § 211B.06, subd. 1 (2008), which “ma[de] it a crime to knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth make a false statement about a proposed ballot initiative.”
Lewison v. Hutchinson, 929 N.W.2d 444 (Minn. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “02 (2018), false campaign material, Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 (2018), and undue influence, Minn.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Minn. Stat. § 211B.06(1) — 1 case
Rickert v. Pub. Disclosure Comm'n, 161 Wash. 2d 843 (Wash. 2007). “271 (West); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 211B.06 (West); Mont. Code Ann.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.