The Big Picture
Lisa Demuth can say “fraud” as many times as she wants. Amy Klobuchar has a plan to stop it—and an agenda that doesn’t end there.
At the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce debate in Brainerd, Demuth kept pointing to Walz’s failures while Klobuchar kept her focus on Minnesota’s next chapter. The senior Senator suggested changes to state government alongside proposals for health insurance costs, workforce shortages and local government expenses — giving Minnesotans something more useful than another account of what went wrong: a plan for what comes next.
Demuth nevertheless tried to tie that agenda to the outgoing governor, accusing Klobuchar of never distancing herself from Walz. Klobuchar answered with specifics: how she would have approached fraud, how she would have spent the surplus, and the changes she would make to agency leadership.
Then she challenged the premise of Demuth’s attack directly: “I know you wish you were debating Tim Walz,” Klobuchar said, “but I’m the one here right now up here.”
While Demuth attempted to make voters see another DFL administration as an extension of the current one, Klobuchar gave them ample reasons to evaluate hers on its own terms.
Fraud Is a Problem. Repetition Isn’t a Solution.
Fraud was Demuth’s most persistent attempt to erase the distinction between Walz and Klobuchar. It appeared in her answers on the budget, healthcare and property taxes. Asked about artificial intelligence, she first returned to fraud and gas prices before briefly addressing the technology itself.
Minnesotans deserve accountability for stolen public money. They also deserve a serious comparison of what these candidates would do about it.
Merely highlighting the fraud scandals does not establish that Demuth is better equipped to prevent future fraud. Demuth’s repeated references to fraud did little to explain why her approach would work better. Conversely, Klobuchar has put specific prevention and enforcement proposals on the table and reiterated those ideas during the debate.
Klobuchar’s published government accountability plan identifies specific fraud-prevention measures, including among others:
screening grants and contracts before money is awarded
unannounced inspections
a statewide system blocking payments to people and contractors convicted of fraud
monitoring that flags suspicious billing changes
freezing questionable payments during investigations
protecting whistleblowers
requiring agencies to act on audit findings
Demuth pointed to a childcare attendance-record bill she said she carried in 2019—a relevant example of the oversight she advocated. But that history does not explain why her approach would work better than the safeguards Klobuchar is proposing.
Klobuchar also responded to Demuth’s accusation that she had failed to act as a senator. Klobuchar described contacting then-U.S. Attorney Andy Luger who requested additional prosecutorial resources from the Justice Department – and her subsequent work to secure “more prosecutors than any other place in the country” to assist with the fraud cases.
Demuth can challenge Klobuchar’s record and proposals but she cannot credibly conduct the debate as though Klobuchar has offered neither. Nor does Demuth automatically own the fraud issue with voters — a recent Star Tribune/KARE 11 poll found slightly more respondents trusted Klobuchar to reduce fraud.
Healthcare Requires More Than a Fraud Talking Point
Even the strongest fraud prevention program would leave Minnesota with more work to do on healthcare. The most heated exchange of the debate - regarding insulin pricing - made that clear.
Demuth cited her vote for the Alec Smith Insulin Affordability Act, then described the law as having “capped insulin at $35 a month.” Klobuchar challenged her account, invoking criticism from Alec’s mother, insulin-access advocate Nicole Smith-Holt, who has publicly endorsed Klobuchar.
The distinction matters.
Demuth did support the 2020 law, which created an insulin safety net with an urgent-need provision that allows eligible patients to obtain a 30-day supply for no more than $35. However, as the Minnesota Reformer reported last week, Demuth voted against capping insulin at least twice; including legislation containing broader insulin cost-sharing limits in 2019 and a $25 monthly copay cap for drugs treating chronic conditions, including diabetes, in 2023.
Demuth presenting her vote as support for a recurring monthly cap obscures a consequential difference. Families who depend on insulin need to afford it every month. A candidate asking for credit on affordability should be clear about which protections she supported—and which she opposed.
Klobuchar supplied more direct answers. She backed reinsurance and proposed state premium assistance if Washington fails to act, a tax credit for small employers providing coverage, and expanded purchasing power to negotiate prescription prices. Those proposals address different expenses: what families pay for insurance, what employers pay to offer it, and what medications cost. Voters can judge them by whom they help, what they cost and how they would work.
In contrast, it’s been 350 days since Demuth launched her campaign and she still has yet to release a detailed healthcare policy plan.
Fraud enforcement belongs in a healthcare agenda. It cannot carry the entire agenda.
Property Taxes Need Specific Answers
The property tax exchange revealed a similar difference.
Demuth blamed mandates, called for reducing the state budget and rooting out fraud, and promised a blue-ribbon commission. Klobuchar discussed how local government actually operates: counties sharing program administration, regional cooperation and replacing outdated technology. She also pledged no unfunded mandates and noted her experience with how frustrating those unfunded mandates can be from her time as Hennepin County Attorney.
Shared administration may not produce the most memorable campaign slogan. But it identifies a way to reduce expenses. Demuth’s answer left the connection between broad state spending reductions and a homeowner’s property tax bill largely unexplained.
That distinction matters. A homeowner opening a tax statement needs more than an explanation of whom to blame. They need a governor who can identify costs, explain how to reduce them and preserve the services their community depends on.
A Workforce Agenda With Measurable Commitments
On workforce development, Demuth highlighted a career-exploration program and the need to improve basic educational outcomes. Klobuchar offered a measurable expansion of training opportunities and discussed accelerated college pathways tied to employers.
Klobuchar’s workforce plan calls for 10,000 additional apprenticeship and skills-training opportunities, partnerships between colleges and employers, and expanded three-year degree options. It also recognizes that childcare and housing can determine whether someone finishes training or accepts a job.
That connection ran through Klobuchar’s opening statement: employers cannot find the workers they need if those workers cannot afford their lives. It is a more complete account of economic growth than the suggestion that Minnesota’s fortunes will turn once the state removes enough obstacles.
Businesses need functioning government, trained workers and communities where those workers can live. Klobuchar’s proposals address those needs together.
The Bottom Line
Demuth’s repeated returns to Walz often crowded out the case for what her administration would accomplish and exposed the weakness of her campaign – Demuth has an argument for why Minnesotans should be dissatisfied; Klobuchar has an argument for what they should expect next.
Minnesota needs a governor who can stop fraudulent payments, help families afford healthcare, prepare workers for good jobs and make government function better. Klobuchar treated those as responsibilities that must be met together.
During the debate, Demuth kept asking voters to look at the governor they have. Klobuchar gave them a clearer picture of the governor they deserve – and that she intends to be.