Bismarck-area Representative Mike Motschenbacher is facing questions regarding potential conflicts of interest stemming from his role as executive director of a charitable gambling trade group while serving in the North Dakota Legislature. Motschenbacher, a Republican representing District 47, which covers parts of north Bismarck, has been the executive director of the North Dakota Gaming Alliance since late 2020. Charitable gambling, especially the rise of electronic pull tabs since 2018, has been a significant and growing area of state law in recent legislative sessions, involving numerous regulatory bills.
Motschenbacher, who is seeking a second four-year term, states he takes a four-month, unpaid leave of absence from his Gaming Alliance job during the regular biennial legislative session. He asserts that he does not sponsor or speak on gambling-related legislation and that the Gaming Alliance hires a lobbyist, Scott Meske, to handle legislative matters. Motschenbacher said in an interview with the North Dakota Monitor, "I am completely separated," indicating his focus is solely on District 47 and state issues. He also stated he consulted with the Secretary of State, Ethics Commission, and Attorney General’s office before first running for office in 2022.
Despite these measures, critics argue that Motschenbacher's dual roles present transparency and ethical concerns. Bob Valeu, director of the Bismarck-Mandan Democratic-NPL, said Motschenbacher has not been entirely upfront with voters about his employment. Valeu cited a District 47 GOP mailer that omitted Motschenbacher's Gaming Alliance job, though Motschenbacher's campaign website does list it. Valeu called it frustrating that there isn't more disclosure and accountability from legislators voting on issues that could impact their employers, suggesting Motschenbacher should recuse himself from certain bill votes.
Dennis Cooley, a professor of philosophy and ethics and director of the Northern Plains Ethics Institute at North Dakota State University, acknowledged that Motschenbacher appears to be addressing the issue, which he called a positive. However, Cooley raised questions about the level of interaction or instruction between Motschenbacher and the Gaming Alliance's lobbyist, Scott Meske, particularly whether it is a "clean step away" during the session. Motschenbacher maintained that Meske "is pretty much on his own during the session" for lobbying activities, receiving information on bills and providing updates.
Meske corroborated that the Gaming Alliance's board, with Motschenbacher's involvement as executive director, develops policy positions before the session begins. However, Meske stated that during the session, he has no work-related interaction with Motschenbacher, only casual greetings. During the Legislature's interim period, Meske handles Gaming Alliance matters. This year, Motschenbacher was observed sitting in the audience at a state Gaming Commission rules hearing and talking with Meske, though he stated he was being paid by the Gaming Alliance at the time and did not want to be seen as influencing anyone. The following month, Motschenbacher testified on behalf of his association at a panel reviewing state boards and commissions, supporting the continuation of the Gaming Commission when Meske was unavailable. He stated this was done in his official Gaming Alliance capacity.
Motschenbacher has not recused himself from votes on gambling-related bills, asserting he does not uniquely or personally benefit from the legislation, nor does he receive additional paychecks or bonuses from such votes. He cited a House rule requiring disclosure only when a personal or private interest "directly, individually and uniquely" affects the legislator. However, his 2025 voting record shows votes on bills directly aligned with the Gaming Alliance's lobbying efforts: he voted for bills to lower tax rates for charitable gambling and to restructure the state Gaming Commission (both lobbied for by the Gaming Alliance, neither ultimately passed). He also voted against a bill opposed by the Gaming Alliance that aimed to restrict which organizations qualify to conduct charitable gambling, a bill that passed the Senate but was defeated in the House.
Rosann Jacobs-Fode, a Democratic opponent, suggested that while Motschenbacher might adhere to the letter of the law, the law itself may be inadequate to address such conflicts. Valeu further questioned how Motschenbacher would vote on future legislation, such as regulating charitable organizations owning bars, asking if he would vote based on his employer's interests or his constituents'. Cooley reinforced that a conflict of interest does not necessarily require direct financial gain, urging lawmakers to consider how votes appear to constituents, such as looking like self-dealing.
