Someone must answer for a massive failure in oversight, but who?

Minnesota Democrats have reached the stage of a political scandal when denying the problem is no longer possible. All that remains is deciding who must answer for it.

That question has ignited the Democratic Senate primary between Rep. Angie Craig and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan. Craig accuses Flanagan of trying to disown the record of an administration she helped lead. Flanagan answers that Gov. Tim Walz directed the state’s response and that a lieutenant governor does not manage individual agencies.

Both claims contain some truth. Neither resolves the central problem: Minnesota allowed organized fraud to spread through one public program after another while officials ignored warnings, deferred to politically connected providers and continued paying increasingly implausible claims.

The best-known case is Feeding Our Future, the nonprofit at the center of a scheme that stole approximately $250 million intended to feed children. Its operators claimed to have served 91 million meals, supporting their demands with fabricated attendance lists, invented invoices and impossible meal counts. More than 60 defendants have pleaded guilty or been convicted.

But Feeding Our Future was only the beginning. Federal investigations subsequently uncovered suspected fraud in housing assistance, autism treatment, personal-care services and other Medicaid programs. Prosecutors have suggested that losses could eventually reach billions, although the frequently cited $9 billion estimate remains an extrapolation rather than an audited total.

The known theft is already sufficient to establish a historic breakdown in government.

Minnesota’s nonpartisan legislative auditor found that the state Department of Education failed to act on warning signs, inadequately investigated complaints and created opportunities for Feeding Our Future to expand. Regulators received approximately 30 complaints between 2018 and 2021. They encountered astonishing growth, missing audits and claims that defied common sense.

In one episode, an inspector observed roughly 30 children receiving food during a virtual visit. After the video connection failed, the provider claimed another 1,800 children had been served. Auditors found no evidence that the state properly investigated the discrepancy.

The failure was not merely technical. Internal records show that legislators pressured education officials to release blocked reimbursements and approve meal sites even as front-line employees raised concerns. Providers accused regulators of racism and enlisted sympathetic politicians to amplify those allegations. Agency managers reportedly worried about lawsuits, political repercussions and charges of discrimination.

Money also flowed into politics. Individuals later charged or implicated in the scandal contributed more than $53,000 to Democratic candidates and officeholders, including Attorney General Keith Ellison, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and state Sen. Omar Fateh. Most eventually returned or redirected the money.

No evidence has established an explicit bargain in which a politician accepted a contribution in exchange for protecting fraud. The network appears to have operated more subtly.

Fraud-connected figures supplied campaign contributions, political organizers, community endorsements, event venues and charitable photo opportunities. Politicians supplied access and legitimacy. Some contacted regulators on behalf of providers. One fraud participant served as a senior policy aide to Frey. Safari Restaurant, a major center of the meal-fraud scheme, hosted Omar’s 2018 congressional victory celebration and later appeared with her in publicity promoting its supposed distribution of thousands of meals.

The scandal, therefore, is not simply that criminals wrote checks to politicians. It is that political relationships helped create an atmosphere in which the providers were trusted and investigators were treated as the problem.

That brings Minnesota back to the uncomfortable question of responsibility.

Walz was governor while much of the fraud exploded. Department commissioners and agency managers reported to his administration. He did not design the schemes, but governors are accountable for recurring failures across the executive branch. One fraudulent provider can be blamed on dishonest operators. Multiple fraud networks moving from meals to housing to Medicaid reveal a defective system.

Flanagan’s responsibility is less direct but still real. A lieutenant governor does not inspect meal sites or approve Medicaid claims. Yet Flanagan has spent years presenting herself as a governing partner in the Walz administration. She cannot claim influence over its accomplishments while becoming a ceremonial observer when its failures are discussed.

Craig understands the electoral danger. Her warning is not merely that Republicans will attack Flanagan. It is that Democrats cannot defend public programs while appearing indifferent to whether those programs work.

Progressive government depends upon public trust. Minnesota residents historically accepted high taxes because they believed their state delivered competent government and good services. That bargain collapses when officials distribute money rapidly, fail to verify where it went and treat basic financial scrutiny as an obstacle to compassion.

Republicans will argue that the scandal demonstrates progressive naiveté: a government more concerned with facilitating payments than protecting the public dollar. Tim O’Malley, the program-integrity director appointed by Walz, has effectively confirmed part of that indictment. He described Minnesota as possessing a “too trusting mindset” and systems biased toward issuing payments rather than safeguarding funds.

Flanagan can blame Walz. Walz can blame agency managers. The agencies can blame federal rules, courts and sophisticated criminals. Every explanation contains a fragment of the truth, which is how bureaucratic catastrophes become no one’s fault.

But voters are unlikely to accept that conclusion. Somebody had authority. Somebody received the warnings. Somebody decided that rapidly expanding claims should continue to be paid.

Minnesota Democrats are now fighting over who must carry the scandal into November. Craig wants primary voters to assign responsibility before Republicans do. Flanagan wants them to view Craig’s attack as disloyalty.

Craig has the stronger argument. Accountability is not a disservice to the Democratic Party. Refusing it is. Until Democrats identify what failed, explain who failed and demonstrate that consequences followed, Minnesota’s fraud scandal will remain more than an embarrassing episode.

It will be an indictment of the way they govern.

(Contributing writer, Brooke Bell)