In the 2008 general election, voters approved an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution adding a 3/8 percent sales tax in Minnesota through 2034. Proponents like to call it the Legacy Amendment but the word “legacy” appears nowhere in the Amendment. The words that do appear in the first sentence of the Amendment are “sales and use tax rate” and that is why we prefer the more accurate and meaningful reference, the Sales Tax Amendment (STA).

The Sales Tax Amendment should be repealed because it violates principles of government, is a political slush fund, and unfairly targets our poorest citizens who need their money more than they need the elite uses to which the $250 million per year raised by the tax is put.

The fundamental perversion of the “STA” is that it incorporates a tax rate into our constitutional law. The Minnesota constitution has never been abused this way. Tax rates are the business of the Legislature, the people’s representatives who can raise, reduce, remove, or otherwise adjust them.

Hard-wiring this regressive tax rate into the state Constitution creates a parallel legislature that sets “outdoor heritage, clean water, parks and trails, and arts and cultural heritage” as the state’s highest priorities for the next 23 years. During these days when the legislature is deciding what combination of borrowing, raising taxes, and cutting vital programs it must implement, the “STA” money stands aside as untouchable for easing the budget problems of health care, education, infrastructure, and law enforcement.

So, what is the “STA” money spent on? It is spent on programs that already receive generous funding from the state and that already have significant resources of their own. When that out-of-work mom buys her daughter an ice cream cone, the state takes her money for the sole, direct and unalterable purpose of giving it to the likes of Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This is reverse-Robin-Hood public policy.

MPR has millions of dollars of assets and received more than $7 million in government grants during fiscal year 2009. Why should it receive $2.65 million in “STA” money? The DNR receives $918 million per year in state funding. Why should it get an additional $127 million from “STA” funds?

Outdoors groups like Ducks Unlimited have tens of thousands of members and receive tens of millions of dollars in government grants separately from the “STA.” It is not too much to accuse those hunters, artists, media groups and others who continue to support the “STA” of being greedy. They should be, and many of their allies are, in favor of defending their priorities in the same legislative and political arena that teachers, police officers, and nurses must compete.

It is important to keep in mind that the Amendment specifically forbids reducing existing state funding for “STA” projects. That is, the millions of dollars added to MPR, the DNR, and other groups is required to be on top of their existing funding from the state.

And don’t be taken in when you hear the elite chirping about all the wonderful things they are doing with your Sales Tax Amendment money. Who couldn’t look good throwing around $250 million? Simply remember this: The money is a result of corrupting the state Constitution, is taken from the poor, is distributed by cronies of special interests for unnecessary purposes, and is crowding out funding for essential services.

Opponents of repealing the “STA” should be required to explain how their support for this excess funding of their favored projects is based on anything other than self-interest and the desire to avoid competitive review by those whose money is paying the bills.

The 2008 ballot initiative garnered 56 percent approval because proponents controlled the wording, which mentioned the sales tax increase only in the very last part of the question, and special interests spent a lot of money promoting it. It is legitimate to ask how many of those voters would have selected “yes” if they knew what the money would really be used for.

After years of recession, the state’s fiscal circumstances now are significantly different from those of 2008. More to the point, last November’s election tells us that the voters also are very “different.” They should have the opportunity to vote on whether the Sales Tax Amendment in the Minnesota Constitution is allowed to stand, or is repealed.

Andy Cilek is president of the Minnesota Voters Alliance, a watchdog and political advocacy group.