Senate ethics subcommittee hears complaint alleging Sen. Bobby Joe Champion failed to disclose attorney-client tie in $3M appropriation; advisory opinion adopts

The Minnesota Senate Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct met May 5, 2025, to hear an ethics complaint against Sen. Bobby Joe Champion alleging he failed to disclose an attorney-client relationship with Salem Inc. before sponsoring legislation that directed $3,000,000 in state appropriations to programs tied to that organization. Earlier in the session the subcommittee voted to adopt an advisory opinion related to Senate Rule 55 and disclosure recommendations.

The complaint, presented by Sen. Croon, says Champion was the chief author of multiple appropriation bills — identified in the complaint as Senate File 29 70 and Senate File 30 35 (2023 omnibus) and later Senate File 29 78 (2025) — that included funding routed through the Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County to 21 Days of Peace, a program run by Salem Inc. Croon told the subcommittee that Salem Inc. was Champion’s legal client and that Champion’s sponsorship “constitutes a violation of Senate rules and our code of ethics.”

Why it matters: the subcommittee is weighing whether Champion’s past legal representation and involvement with a nonprofit that later received legislative funding created an appearance of impropriety under Senate rules 56.1 and 56.3 and the Senate code of ethics (section 1.3). Complainants emphasized that the 2023 legislation ultimately directed $3,000,000 to programs that benefitted Salem Inc. and said the Senate and public lacked full information about Salem’s recent litigation and financial history when the appropriation was considered.

What complainants presented: Sen. Croon summarized timelines and court filings, saying Champion was the attorney of record in foreclosure-related litigation involving Salem Inc. and that at least some court activity overlapped with Champion’s sponsorship and presentation of the 2023 bills. Croon argued the attorney-client relationship — even if uncompensated pro bono work — created duties that conflicted with Champion’s legislative role and impaired his independence of judgment, and that disclosure to colleagues should have been made.

What Champion’s defense said: Champion and his attorney, David Zoll, told the subcommittee Champion had provided pro bono representation that was completed before the appropriations process at issue and that he had no personal financial interest in the legislation. Zoll argued settlement and dismissal paperwork meant Champion’s representation had concluded and stressed the 2023 appropriation was made to the Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County, not directly to Salem Inc.; funding would be dispersed on a reimbursement basis and administered with oversight by the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) and Hennepin County. "To be clear, Senator Champion did nothing wrong," Zoll said.

Key factual points discussed - Bills named in the complaint: Senate File 29 70 and Senate File 30 35 (2023) and Senate File 29 78 (2025) as referenced by complainants and staff. - Dollar amount: Complainants say the 2023 package resulted in $3,000,000 reaching Salem Inc.-related programs; language in the 2023 omnibus funding item names Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County as the grantee and identifies subgrants to 21 Days of Peace and another organization. - Litigation timeline cited by complainants: settlements and dismissals with listed dates (settlement exhibits show October 7, 2022; stipulations of dismissal were filed subsequently, with some court entries in February and one dismissal filed in April 2023 as reflected in the complaint exhibits). Counsel for Champion disputed that Champion remained the active attorney at the time of the legislative presentation, saying his representation had effectively concluded. - Funding mechanics: defense emphasized the appropriation provided funds to a county-level grantee and required invoices and reimbursement procedures with DEED oversight; counsel described multiple layers of accountability before funds would reach 21 Days of Peace.

Committee discussion and legal framing: witnesses and members debated which rule(s) govern required disclosures. Complainants relied on Senate rules 56.1 and 56.3 (improper conduct and betrayal of public trust) and the Senate code of ethics section 1.3; counsel and others pointed to the objective statutory conflict standard in Minnesota Statute section 10A.07 and Senate rule 56.4, which requires disclosure when a senator has a personal financial interest. Senators asked about normative practice and whether there are prior, comparable disclosures; no member identified a prior, directly analogous example of a senator authoring legislation that routed state funds to a client in the manner alleged here.

Action taken during the session: Senator Miller moved adoption of the draft advisory opinion related to Senate Rule 55 and earlier inquiry; the motion was called and the chair announced, "All those in favor say, Aye. Opposed, nay. Motion prevails," and the advisory opinion was adopted as part of the session’s business. The subcommittee then proceeded with the complaint presentation and question-and-answer sequence but recessed at the end of the hearing to return after the floor session for deliberation; no final finding on the April 10 complaint was announced.

Quotations from the record - Complainant: Sen. Croon said, "Senator Champion's sponsorship of multiple pieces of legislation benefiting a legal client constitutes a violation of Senate rules and our code of ethics." (Closing remarks) - Champion’s counsel: David Zoll stated, "To be clear, Senator Champion did nothing wrong." (presentation)

Next steps: The subcommittee outlined its options under Senate Rule 55.5 for a probable-cause proceeding: (1) find no probable cause and end the matter; (2) defer action to a later date; or (3) proceed with the investigation. The panel recessed to convene again after the Senate floor session; the transcript records no formal determination by the subcommittee on the complaint at the May 5 session.

Ending note: The hearing laid out competing legal and ethical interpretations — whether an uncompensated lawyer-legislator must disclose a former or recent client relationship when sponsoring targeted appropriations — and the subcommittee paused its deliberations without issuing a final finding. The advisory opinion adopted earlier in the meeting reiterates the subcommittee’s recommended disclosure practices for similar situations and will be part of the record when members return to deliberate.