Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) and former governor Tim Pawlenty (R., Minn.) sparred over a cigarette surcharge last night. Who was right? If you ask Minnesotan conservatives, they say both were.

In 2005, Pawlenty faced a divided state legislature. Democrats controlled the state senate, and they refused to cut enough spending to balance the budget. In return, Pawlenty proposed a 75-cent fee on individual cigarette packs to pay for the health-care and education expenses that Democrats demanded. For two months, the stalemate continued, culminating in a brief government shutdown in early July. Eventually, the Democrats relented and passed an omnibus bill — including the cigarettes fee — into law.

From the beginning, Bachmann opposed the fee, telling the St. Paul Star Tribune, “It’s a tax increase.” She introduced an amendment to strip the fee from the omnibus bill, but it failed. Afterward, Bachmann voted for the bill — fee and all — as did most of her colleagues.

Last night, Bachmann said she voted for the bill because it included pro-life legislation. Included in the omnibus bill was the “Unborn Child Pain Prevention Act,” which mandated that doctors offer anesthesia to fetuses 20 weeks or older when performing abortions. Talking Points Memo calls this provision “a sweetener for wavering conservatives,” but Scott Fischbach, executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, says the omnibus bill was “the vehicle that was available to us at the time.” When asked if he believes Bachmann voted for the bill because of the pro-life provision, Fischbach replies, “Yeah, I do.”

He is quick to add, however, that MCCL believes both Bachmann and Pawlenty did the right thing: “This presents a tough spot for us because we really appreciate both of their commitments. They’re both very strong pro-life people.”

Mitch Pearlstein, head of the Minnesota-based think tank, Center of the American Experiment, also defends Pawlenty: “In a budget deadlock involving over $30 billion of biennial spending, I’m sorry if I can’t get too excited over $75 million.”

At the time, Pawlenty was adamant that the fee was not a tax. The St. Paul Pioneer Press reported that “[Pawlenty’s] staff handed out a state Revenue Department paper that describes the distinctions between a fee and a tax. Among those differences, it said a fee is imposed on optional activities and the fees ‘approximate the costs incurred by or imposed on government.’”

“I believe this is a user fee,” Pawlenty said. “Some people are going to say it’s a tax. I’m going to say it’s a compromise and a solution to move Minnesota forward.”

The “health-impact fee,” as Pawlenty called it, was meant to recoup the expenses the state incurred in taking care of people with smoking-related diseases.

The tobacco companies challenged the fee in court, arguing that it violated a settlement with the states to make annual payments for past and future health-care costs. In return, each state was supposed to surrender claims against the companies for “liability of any nature whatsoever.”

Although Pawlenty appealed a lower court’s decision in favor of the companies, his spokesman told the Associated Press at the time that he “[was] inclined to simply drop the fee” if the appeal failed.

The state supreme court ruled in Pawlenty’s favor. But last night, he said he regretted that decision because in the end, revenues were higher than expected, and the state “didn’t even need it.”