Kate Turnbow at Cap Journal has story on the campaign finance mess that's quickly becoming known as "visiongate"

Kate Turnbow over at the Pierre Capitol Journal has one of the few stories I've seen so far out there on "South Dakotans for Honest and Open Government" and Vision South Dakota.

And appropriately titled as well - Not so open and honest"
South Dakotans for Open and Honest Government, which has sponsored at least one political cartoon advertisement in serious opposition to Gov. Mike Rounds, has proved to be less than open and honest about who is behind its mysterious organization.

But campaign finance reports show that most of the money behind the organization has come from another political action organization, Vision South Dakota.

Also contributing to its campaign was the committee's treasurer, Dwight Hale, who previously told the Capital Journal that he knew nothing about the organization.

The organization's contributions totaled $26,100, which was all spent on advertising.

In addition to giving to South Dakotans for Open and Honest Government, Vision South Dakota also contributed more than $23,000 to Democratic candidate for governor Jack Billion and a smaller amount to incumbent School and Public Lands Commissioner Bryce Healy, also a Democrat.

While there is currently a discrepancy in Vision South Dakota's financial reporting, its treasurer, James Endres of Watertown, assures that the issue is being resolved and was the result of a simple mathematical error due to the hurriedness of its finance filing.

Vision South Dakota lists a contribution to South Dakotans for Open and Honest Government in the amount of $8,100, yet the open and honest government campaign lists a total of $26,000 in contributions from Vision South Dakota.

Another discrepancy is that Vision South Dakota received a $7,000 check from the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate tribe, which according to the secretary of state's office is an illegal contribution.
So, Dwight Hale clearly lied when he was questioned about his knowledge of the backing organization. Imagine that. Read it all here as the "Vision-gate" scandal rolls on as we approach election day.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hey DWC - do you not get Google alerts, or do you just rely on anonymous posters for your news tips?

Also, if you read the article for comprehension, not for quotes - you might actually understand that the discrepancy is going to be fixed.

Let me know when something illegal goes on.
Anonymous said…
Too bad the RCJ doesn't write about this instead of quoting their best friend Abrahamson on the Hunt thing. If they do happen to write about it, WWES? (what would Eric say??)
Anonymous said…
Mice nutz... This is nothing compared to Roger Hunt and his slush fund. Wish you were as excited about finding out the truth on the Governor's Club. It is pretty obvious you are just the '06 mouth piece for the GOP and VYFBAA
Anonymous said…
I think the Term is "Republican Hack"
Anonymous said…
Also, what's up with Kate Turnbow acting like she uncovered this herself. For all the legit media, actually... why don't they want to admit they read this on a blog first?

There's no way Turnbow would have had an article if it wasn't for PP, and I question her ethics for not citing her source.
PP said…
Kate actually first wrote on it about a month or so earlier.
Anonymous said…
Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Zzzzzzz.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Anonymous said…
PP is right- Kate broke this story a month ago. It is refreshing to see a MSM journalist actually do some investigatory reporting.
Anonymous said…
I was mistaken. At least I admit it. Abrahamson was not mentioned in the RCJ Hunt article. He did comment in the article about a polling place being closed at a church because it had a yes on 6 sign. I would still like to know what he would say about the Billion money.
Anonymous said…
What is the Tribe?

Under federal law tribes are described as “persons” and may legally contribute to PAC’s and candidates. Check the FEC web site.

Quoting from Friday’s Capitol City Journal “Chad Heinrich, deputy secretary of state, said that an American Indian tribe is considered a corporation and South Dakota does not allow corporate contributions to political action groups.”

Quoting from Friday’s Watertown Public Opinion Secretary of State, Chris Nelson says “State law prohibits a political action committee from receiving money from corporations or associations.” “And the definition of association would in fact prohibit a PAC from receiving money from a Tribe.” So Chris is saying a Tribe is an “association”.

If the Secretary of States office does not know what the Tribes are, how is the Tribe, PAC or candidate supposed to know? State law is silent on the issue in election law.

Bottom line here is the $7,000 is going back and it was an education process for all parties concerned.
Anonymous said…
What is the Tribe?

Under federal law tribes are described as “persons” and may legally contribute to PAC’s and candidates. Check the FEC web site.

Quoting from Friday’s Capitol City Journal “Chad Heinrich, deputy secretary of state, said that an American Indian tribe is considered a corporation and South Dakota does not allow corporate contributions to political action groups.”

Quoting from Friday’s Watertown Public Opinion Secretary of State, Chris Nelson says “State law prohibits a political action committee from receiving money from corporations or associations.” “And the definition of association would in fact prohibit a PAC from receiving money from a Tribe.” So Chris is saying a Tribe is an “association”.

If the Secretary of States office does not know what the Tribes are, how is the Tribe, PAC or candidate supposed to know? State law is silent on the issue.

Bottom line here is the $7,000 is going back and it was an education process for all parties concerned.
Anonymous said…
Nice job Chris. I wonder if Larry in the AG's office helped figure this out.

So now it is really clear!!

Thank goodness the legislature is coming back in January to fix all of this.
Joan said…
pp- This is small fish compared to Roger Hunt's refusal to tell who gave the Vote Yes people $750,000. Do you think it's okay for the Republicans to hide that information from the public?

Have the Vote Yes people even filed their campaign finance disclosure yet? As of Tuesday night, which was the deadline, they were still thinking about whether to obey state law according to a Nov. 1 New York Times story.
So where is your indignity over that? Or do you agree that the Vote Yes people are above the law?
Anonymous said…
Joan -

Righteous Roger et al are entitled to ignoring the law, as long as it is in service to God and The Church.
Anonymous said…
The difference between Visiongate and the Yes on 6 issue is that Visiongate involves a clearly illegal contribution whereas it is not clear that the Yes on 6 donation was illegal.
Anonymous said…
4:03 - Clearly Illegal? Must be smoking the soon to be legal marijuana or putting up too many vote Yes on 6 signs to be connected to the real world.

Sorry you better read the 2:31 post again. The state has a problem. They don’t know what is legal or illegal. Three staff member and three different opinions. On top of that state law is silent and the Feds see it different too.

Looks like a dead end for Visiongate and Tribegate.
Anonymous said…
4:03 - Clearly Illegal? Must be smoking the soon to be legal marijuana or putting up too many vote Yes on 6 signs to be connected to the real world.

Sorry you better read the 2:31 post again. The state has a problem. They don’t know what is legal or illegal. Three staff members and three different opinions. On top of that state law is silent and the Feds see it different too.

Looks like a dead end for Visiongate and Tribegate.
Anonymous said…
Zzzzzzzzzz. Zzzzzz. Zzzzz.
Mimi said…
Speaking of legal or illegal, I would not be surprised if Roger Hunt would be doing something illegal as he was a prime sponsor of a bill that is clearly unconstitutional.
Anonymous said…
You know nothing of civics. The legislature can pass any bill it votes to. Nothing is unconstitutional unless a court declares it so, but it has to be challenged first. Also, can you really blame Roger's anonymus donor for not wanting his name known. There have been over 100 acts of crime/vandalism by pro-aborts against cars/signs/buildings of pro-lifers. Obviously, some of them are vile and nasty people, as evidenced by their comments on this blog.
Anonymous said…
Just because Endres says it's just a simple math mistake, and it will be fixed easily, doesn't mean he's telling the truth, or that it is an easy fix. How could anyone competant enough to be elected and re-elected to the legislature make so many big mistakes? We're talking about thousands of dollars here, not just a simple add or subtract mistake.
Anonymous said…
anon 12:14,
You know nothing of civics. Each member of our legislature takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Roger Hunt and the others have violated that oath by voting for HB 1215.

As for the acts of violence by "pro aborts". Do you really want to open up that topic? Do you want to discuss the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta? Do you want to talk about the bombs at abortion clinics? Do you want to discuss Operation Rescue taking down license plate numbers and stalking poeople who have been to an abort clinc? there are many more examples if you want to talk about safety. Because a few signs are "destroyed" you fear for your life? Get real. Political signs get destroyed in every election. it would appear that many of the pro-lifers are vile and nasty.
Joan said…
12:14 - I don't blame Roger's donor for wanting to keep his name secret, but I do blame them both for trying to skirt the law.

Why should anyone be allowed to use their wealth to secretly influence a political issue?
That sort of thing is why those laws were passed.

If Hunt was a Democrat and this was an issue the religious right opposed, you people - including pp - would be yelling your heads off.

Roger Hunt is a disgrace to the South Dakota legislature, and people who are trying to justify his shady behavior need to open their eyes and face the facts.
been there said…
The Legislature did uphold the
Constitution. The Constitution hasn't changed by one letter. Abortion is a matter left up to the states since it isn't enumerated. We had it right from 1781 until 1973. Then came a flawed Supreme Court decision. We are upholding the Constitution by trying to right a wrong and return it to the states where it rightly belongs.

Popular posts from this blog

That didn't take long

State to UFWS: It's over